***Official Discussing the Merits of the Iraqi Conflict thread*** How many casualties are acceptable - on both sides?

[Fencer128]

Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

Hehe, well some seem unsatisfied with that answer, but the issue has kinda subsided. shhh

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

Hehe, well some seem unsatisfied with that answer, but the issue has kinda subsided. shhh

I believe more and more this is just about getting Saddam buried quickly, along with his dufus sons, and Teriq Aziz, or what ever his name is. WMD's are the frosting and the justification. If they are not found, or are of such inconsequential nature as to not have justified this "war", Bush is toast in 2004. The jury is still out on that, and, by dingo , you can bet your bottom dollar, when the US has control of Iraq, there will be a speedy search, post haste, for that "smoking gun" called mass quantities of WMDs earmarked for western democracy's consumption.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

Hehe, well some seem unsatisfied with that answer, but the issue has kinda subsided. shhh

I believe more and more this is just about getting Saddam buried quickly, along with his dufus sons, and Teriq Aziz, or what ever his name is. WMD's are the frosting and the justification. If they are not found, or are of such inconsequential nature as to not have justified this "war", Bush is toast in 2004. The jury is still out on that, and, by dingo , you can bet your bottom dollar, when the US has control of Iraq, there will be a speedy search, post haste, for that "smoking gun" called mass quantities of WMDs earmarked for western democracy's consumption.

If no WMD's are found(I'm sure something will be found, but what, how much, and in what state who knows), not only would Bush be toast, but the reputation of the US would likely take a nose dive.

 

[conjur]

Why aren't some of the UN peacekeeping forces following up the coalition forces to help put security/authority in place in towns in the wake of the ground troops?

CBS News reporting some towns have no water, no electricity, no authority in place and citizens are concerned about bandits coming in.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

Hehe, well some seem unsatisfied with that answer, but the issue has kinda subsided. shhh

I believe more and more this is just about getting Saddam buried quickly, along with his dufus sons, and Teriq Aziz, or what ever his name is. WMD's are the frosting and the justification. If they are not found, or are of such inconsequential nature as to not have justified this "war", Bush is toast in 2004. The jury is still out on that, and, by dingo , you can bet your bottom dollar, when the US has control of Iraq, there will be a speedy search, post haste, for that "smoking gun" called mass quantities of WMDs earmarked for western democracy's consumption.

If no WMD's are found(I'm sure something will be found, but what, how much, and in what state who knows), not only would Bush be toast, but the reputation of the US would likely take a nose dive.

Take a look around. It already has.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: conjur
Why aren't some of the UN peacekeeping forces following up the coalition forces to help put security/authority in place in towns in the wake of the ground troops?

CBS News reporting some towns have no water, no electricity, no authority in place and citizens are concerned about bandits coming in.

The UN likely hasn't been asked to do it.

 

[sandorski]

Triple: Yes, for sure it has, but without WMD it would get a lot worse, if that were possible.

 

[wirelessenabled]

What he said. Great post shifrbv!

It is sad for me to say but I don't trust much coming out of this Administration unless it is independently verified. Bush seems to say anything that suits his purpose today, without regard to the fact that some of it contradicts what he said yesterday. So .... is he an idiot or a serial liar .... or does he have some other as yet unknown agenda in mind? I have never felt so afraid of a dictatorship taking hold in America as now. Nixon was nothing compared to Bush in that regard.

Originally posted by: shifrbv
I think another thing that really bothers people is the fact that after inspectors were out of the country for several years and all we did was patrol the no-fly zone, we only gave physical inspections a very short time and then said they weren't working. It didn't seem logical. And when you look at spending billions of dollars in a bad economy, it didn't look like the Bush team was trying every approach that they could have. They seemed in a rush to judgement which didn't seem prudent with so much at stake.

Also, alot of people don't trust the supposed "evidence" the Bush team has presented since they've lied about Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Al-Quada and even used forged documents to try and support the case that Saddam has WMD's. Then, they went and bugged the UN on top of it and tried to brush it over in the US media. It just looked shady and untrustworthy from an administration that claims to be "righteous".

Plus, the double-standard when they show pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and smiling together. The chemical weapons that former administrations sold them. And then the contracts that Dick Cheney has to rebuild the country.

Then we have Bush's secretive post-war agenda which people are still not sure of what that will actually entail. I'm afraid alot of Iraqi's might be in for a rude shock when they get a leader so distant from them like the one in Afghanistan that is only alive due to 24/7 bodyguards. They are expecting freedom. Yet, they fail to see that this administration has been taking freedom away from Americans at an unprecedented pace since this whole "war on terrorism" started. I'm afraid they will be disappointed with the end results. I've seen some Iraqi's here in America talking about "liberation not occupation". Apparently, they haven't been clued into the Bush plan. I don't the military has either. They think they will be able to get this war over and come home. While other reports have been talking about stationing 100,000 troops there to keep the peace after the fighting is over.

Then, when 3/4 of the world says we don't believe it either, it only adds to the suspicion.

When I start seeing so many things like that, things that clearly seem at odds with my own moral character, I have a hard time believing in it or supporting it. It just doesn't seem right.

And many other Americans feel that way as well. Alot of people are scared. But those people don't make it on to the evening news or the world stage because there never was any serious debate about this war. The Bush team had made up their minds about this once 9/11 hit. Actually, long before, but 9/11 allowed them to go ahead with it because there was so much hate in the country.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: conjur
Why aren't some of the UN peacekeeping forces following up the coalition forces to help put security/authority in place in towns in the wake of the ground troops?

CBS News reporting some towns have no water, no electricity, no authority in place and citizens are concerned about bandits coming in.

The UN likely hasn't been asked to do it.

I wonder if they would if they were asked. Or would they wait until it was more secure?

This is one of the things I was fearful of....the Iraqi citizenry getting caught in the wake for a short period before help could be organized.

 

[Iwentsouth]

I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam

I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.

It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA - I just can't help you."

Of course I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. I told a few journalists who I knew. They said that this sort of thing often happened - spontaneous, emotional, and secretive outbursts imploring visitors to free them from Saddam's tyrannical Iraq.


Have to register at the site to read whole thing.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: shifrbv
I think another thing that really bothers people is the fact that after inspectors were out of the country for several years and all we did was patrol the no-fly zone, we only gave physical inspections a very short time and then said they weren't working. It didn't seem logical. And when you look at spending billions of dollars in a bad economy, it didn't look like the Bush team was trying every approach that they could have. They seemed in a rush to judgement which didn't seem prudent with so much at stake.

Resolution 1441 was a last and final chance to see if Saddam would come clean and cooperate. Since he didn't there was only one viable way to make sure that Iraq did not continue in the same way it has for some many years and that was to remove his regime. France and Germany and the other nations agreed to that when they unamiously signed 1441. They renigged on their word and honor for their own reasons. I agree, doing the right thing is causing some problems but none that can't be dealt with if they show a united front now. It doesn't look as if they will.

Also, alot of people don't trust the supposed "evidence" the Bush team has presented since they've lied about Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Al-Quada and even used forged documents to try and support the case that Saddam has WMD's. Then, they went and bugged the UN on top of it and tried to brush it over in the US media. It just looked shady and untrustworthy from an administration that claims to be "righteous".

I'd say that the prospects of the US finding the evidence now that they are in-country are high but the other side will just say that it was planted. I give up on trying to discuss that point with them.

Plus, the double-standard when they show pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and smiling together. The chemical weapons that former administrations sold them. And then the contracts that Dick Cheney has to rebuild the country.

Double standard? Is that like the double standard of Chirac shaking hands with Saddam when he was presenting him with his own little nuclear reactor. As you all keep pointing out, Iraq has lots of oil so just why did France sell Iraq a NUCLEAR REACTOR?
Dick Cheney has no contracts to rebuild the country, lying does not help your case, it does though show your bias.

Then we have Bush's secretive post-war agenda which people are still not sure of what that will actually entail. I'm afraid alot of Iraqi's might be in for a rude shock when they get a leader so distant from them like the one in Afghanistan that is only alive due to 24/7 bodyguards. They are expecting freedom. Yet, they fail to see that this administration has been taking freedom away from Americans at an unprecedented pace since this whole "war on terrorism" started. I'm afraid they will be disappointed with the end results. I've seen some Iraqi's here in America talking about "liberation not occupation". Apparently, they haven't been clued into the Bush plan. I don't the military has either. They think they will be able to get this war over and come home. While other reports have been talking about stationing 100,000 troops there to keep the peace after the fighting is over.

Considering they have been under Saddam for the last 30 years I don't think they will be disapointed. It will be a difficult process to restore a sense of trust in their government. From your post I guess you would like to see Iraq liberated one day and all of the troops come home the next. Stupid idea. How long will it take cannot be known at this time. Supposition as an attack is viable for some, I don't care for it that much.

Then, when 3/4 of the world says we don't believe it either, it only adds to the suspicion.

When I start seeing so many things like that, things that clearly seem at odds with my own moral character, I have a hard time believing in it or supporting it. It just doesn't seem right.

Do your own research, accept that some things will not be known until they happen. Accept that the people of Iraq will have a chance at a better life and then if in two years things didn't work out at all, vote in a new administration.

And many other Americans feel that way as well. Alot of people are scared. But those people don't make it on to the evening news or the world stage because there never was any serious debate about this war. The Bush team had made up their minds about this once 9/11 hit. Actually, long before, but 9/11 allowed them to go ahead with it because there was so much hate in the country.

The last poll I saw showed 70% support right now. "Many other" is ambiguous and leaves out their reasons such as hard-core democrats and such.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I posted this in the other thread, but it also deserves to be said here too.

This is all I have to say to you morons who feel the need to protest this war. Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation. Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too. Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: conjur
Why aren't some of the UN peacekeeping forces following up the coalition forces to help put security/authority in place in towns in the wake of the ground troops?

CBS News reporting some towns have no water, no electricity, no authority in place and citizens are concerned about bandits coming in.

The UN likely hasn't been asked to do it.

I wonder if they would if they were asked. Or would they wait until it was more secure?

This is one of the things I was fearful of....the Iraqi citizenry getting caught in the wake for a short period before help could be organized.

I dunno what the UN would do, from what I understand though, the Coalition already has a plan for providing humanitarian aid to those behind the lines.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I posted this in the other thread, but it also deserves to be said here too.

This is all I have to say to you morons who feel the need to protest this war. Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation. Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too. Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

Which is why Bin Laden needs to be caught. You have again confused Saddam with Bin Laden though.

That said, now that the war has begun we can be sure that Saddam is now a threat to the West in the future. This war now has to be seen through.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

Hehe, well some seem unsatisfied with that answer, but the issue has kinda subsided. shhh

I believe more and more this is just about getting Saddam buried quickly, along with his dufus sons, and Teriq Aziz, or what ever his name is. WMD's are the frosting and the justification. If they are not found, or are of such inconsequential nature as to not have justified this "war", Bush is toast in 2004. The jury is still out on that, and, by dingo , you can bet your bottom dollar, when the US has control of Iraq, there will be a speedy search, post haste, for that "smoking gun" called mass quantities of WMDs earmarked for western democracy's consumption.

If no WMD's are found(I'm sure something will be found, but what, how much, and in what state who knows), not only would Bush be toast, but the reputation of the US would likely take a nose dive.

If none are found, and if the Iraqi people are happy that saddam is now not in power, do you feel it is just? I believe we'll find loads of WMD, but just wanted to get the anti-war, anti-bush people's point of view.

After you answer that, do you think that if Gore were president and initiated this war that you would still be against it? Be truthful if you can be.

KK

 

[rival]

If no WMD's are found(I'm sure something will be found, but what, how much, and in what state who knows), not only would Bush be toast, but the reputation of the US would likely take a nose dive.

If nothing is found, you can bet your ass that something will be 'planted'

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

Hehe, well some seem unsatisfied with that answer, but the issue has kinda subsided. shhh

I believe more and more this is just about getting Saddam buried quickly, along with his dufus sons, and Teriq Aziz, or what ever his name is. WMD's are the frosting and the justification. If they are not found, or are of such inconsequential nature as to not have justified this "war", Bush is toast in 2004. The jury is still out on that, and, by dingo , you can bet your bottom dollar, when the US has control of Iraq, there will be a speedy search, post haste, for that "smoking gun" called mass quantities of WMDs earmarked for western democracy's consumption.

If no WMD's are found(I'm sure something will be found, but what, how much, and in what state who knows), not only would Bush be toast, but the reputation of the US would likely take a nose dive.

If none are found, and if the Iraqi people are happy that saddam is now not in power, do you feel it is just? I believe we'll find loads of WMD, but just wanted to get the anti-war, anti-bush people's point of view.

After you answer that, do you think that if Gore were president and initiated this war that you would still be against it? Be truthful if you can be.

KK

No. Depends on how Gore handled it, I doubt he would have started a war with Iraq, but who knows.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Can't believe we're still stuck on the numbers thing!

I thought "with us or against us" was pretty self explanitory - especially in the absence of a 2nd UN resolution.

If the "coalition of the willing" is the list of those that give official support - and if you're not "with us your against us" - I can only assume that all the non-signatories do not officially support the war.

Since - as has been pointed out - speculation does not make for good judgement, can we only say FACT that 45 countries officially support the war.

The world is made up of many more countries than 45 - so FACT most don't officially support the war. You can all argue endlessly how many may support "unofficially" - but since this method of speculative determination is generally frowned upon we can only say that FACT offically speaking those that support the war are in a minority.

Shame - if the diplomacy had been handled just a *little* better that wouldn't have had to be the case IMHO.

One last thing - hands up who still thinks this war was instigated with its primary motive to remove Saddam and not disarm WMD from Iraq? Why?

Night Night,

Andy

Hehe, well some seem unsatisfied with that answer, but the issue has kinda subsided. shhh

I believe more and more this is just about getting Saddam buried quickly, along with his dufus sons, and Teriq Aziz, or what ever his name is. WMD's are the frosting and the justification. If they are not found, or are of such inconsequential nature as to not have justified this "war", Bush is toast in 2004. The jury is still out on that, and, by dingo , you can bet your bottom dollar, when the US has control of Iraq, there will be a speedy search, post haste, for that "smoking gun" called mass quantities of WMDs earmarked for western democracy's consumption.

If no WMD's are found(I'm sure something will be found, but what, how much, and in what state who knows), not only would Bush be toast, but the reputation of the US would likely take a nose dive.

If none are found, and if the Iraqi people are happy that saddam is now not in power, do you feel it is just? I believe we'll find loads of WMD, but just wanted to get the anti-war, anti-bush people's point of view.

After you answer that, do you think that if Gore were president and initiated this war that you would still be against it? Be truthful if you can be.

KK

No. Depends on how Gore handled it, I doubt he would have started a war with Iraq, but who knows.

So, you are saying that once Saddams regime is eliminated, and if people rejoicing in the streets, you are against that? You would rather have people being oppressed? I don't follow.

KK

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: shifrbv
I think another thing that really bothers people is the fact that after inspectors were out of the country for several years and all we did was patrol the no-fly zone, we only gave physical inspections a very short time and then said they weren't working. It didn't seem logical. And when you look at spending billions of dollars in a bad economy, it didn't look like the Bush team was trying every approach that they could have. They seemed in a rush to judgement which didn't seem prudent with so much at stake.

Resolution 1441 was a last and final chance to see if Saddam would come clean and cooperate. Since he didn't there was only one viable way to make sure that Iraq did not continue in the same way it has for some many years and that was to remove his regime. France and Germany and the other nations agreed to that when they unamiously signed 1441. They renigged on their word and honor for their own reasons. I agree, doing the right thing is causing some problems but none that can't be dealt with if they show a united front now. It doesn't look as if they will.

Also, alot of people don't trust the supposed "evidence" the Bush team has presented since they've lied about Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Al-Quada and even used forged documents to try and support the case that Saddam has WMD's. Then, they went and bugged the UN on top of it and tried to brush it over in the US media. It just looked shady and untrustworthy from an administration that claims to be "righteous".

I'd say that the prospects of the US finding the evidence now that they are in-country are high but the other side will just say that it was planted. I give up on trying to discuss that point with them.

Plus, the double-standard when they show pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and smiling together. The chemical weapons that former administrations sold them. And then the contracts that Dick Cheney has to rebuild the country.

Double standard? Is that like the double standard of Chirac shaking hands with Saddam when he was presenting him with his own little nuclear reactor. As you all keep pointing out, Iraq has lots of oil so just why did France sell Iraq a NUCLEAR REACTOR?
Dick Cheney has no contracts to rebuild the country, lying does not help your case, it does though show your bias.

Then we have Bush's secretive post-war agenda which people are still not sure of what that will actually entail. I'm afraid alot of Iraqi's might be in for a rude shock when they get a leader so distant from them like the one in Afghanistan that is only alive due to 24/7 bodyguards. They are expecting freedom. Yet, they fail to see that this administration has been taking freedom away from Americans at an unprecedented pace since this whole "war on terrorism" started. I'm afraid they will be disappointed with the end results. I've seen some Iraqi's here in America talking about "liberation not occupation". Apparently, they haven't been clued into the Bush plan. I don't the military has either. They think they will be able to get this war over and come home. While other reports have been talking about stationing 100,000 troops there to keep the peace after the fighting is over.

Considering they have been under Saddam for the last 30 years I don't think they will be disapointed. It will be a difficult process to restore a sense of trust in their government. From your post I guess you would like to see Iraq liberated one day and all of the troops come home the next. Stupid idea. How long will it take cannot be known at this time. Supposition as an attack is viable for some, I don't care for it that much.

Then, when 3/4 of the world says we don't believe it either, it only adds to the suspicion.

When I start seeing so many things like that, things that clearly seem at odds with my own moral character, I have a hard time believing in it or supporting it. It just doesn't seem right.

Do your own research, accept that some things will not be known until they happen. Accept that the people of Iraq will have a chance at a better life and then if in two years things didn't work out at all, vote in a new administration.

And many other Americans feel that way as well. Alot of people are scared. But those people don't make it on to the evening news or the world stage because there never was any serious debate about this war. The Bush team had made up their minds about this once 9/11 hit. Actually, long before, but 9/11 allowed them to go ahead with it because there was so much hate in the country.

The last poll I saw showed 70% support right now. "Many other" is ambiguous and leaves out their reasons such as hard-core democrats and such.

as far as support for the war goes... if you dont support they ( the goverment ) has the right to put you in jail if you oppose it.

 

[LeeTJ]

Brett Hume on Fox just said.

Clinton DIDN'T get UN approval before going into Kosovo and that it was the right move. He goes on to say that basically Iraq is really not that different than Kosovo.

How do you guys feel about that?? Was kosovo a good move?? Is iraq similar to kosovo?

 

[conjur]

Clinton did have NATO approval, though.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: conjur
Clinton did have NATO approval, though.

that's true.

he didn't get UN approval because Russia was threatening to Veto.

NATO, however, has no jurisdiction over Iraq. You could say the coalition of 45 nations is equivalent to NATO.

in my opinion, it's hard to argue that there is any real substantive difference.

 

[Red Dawn]

Well it looks as if the liberated Iraqi's are welcoming Coalition Forces with open arms...NOT!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well it looks as if the liberated Iraqi's are welcoming Coalition Forces with open arms...NOT!

Well, sounds like they are just afraid of the unknown. That will change once the UN aid starts coming in.