Iraq Aftermath

Almost every day I have the pleasure and privilege of speaking with an Iranian who runs (with his equally delightful family) a mini-mart. His most recent comment: "Why does Bush spend so much money on war, and none on peace? Why does he not spend money on peace?"

Another Iranian to whom I speak almost every day is equally critical of Bush.

These people, who of course have family members in Iran, are obviously in a better position to hold a considered viewpoint on the issue of
the volatility of the whole of the Middle East.

As for Iraq, well quite frankly I can't see how the unwarranted and univited damage to that country can ever be reversed. The other countries of the world who voted in the UN against a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, are not going to help the USA clean up the mess. A precise tally is kept of the number of US military personnel who are still giving their lives to a stupid cause.

But has anyone bothered to count the Iraqi children who are the innocent victims of this invasion? Even before the invasion started, Australian MP Mark Latham drew attention to the inevitable loss of children's lives that would result.

Those of us preparing to protest US President George W Bush?s visit to Australia must tread a fine line ? between condemning the policies of an illegitimate president with a dangerous agenda and damning an entire nation.
Those mobilising the Weapons of Mass Derision rally next Sunday have the right idea - turning the President who never won an election, with a cartoon view of the world and childish notions of good versus evil, into a joke is the only constructive response.

And in making a joke of our own Prime Minister's genuflection, we are calling for an Australian leadership with the strength to represent our national interests rather than blindly following its dominant ally.

That said, we would be foolish if we turned our protests into a round of Yank bashing, because in doing so we would be attacking many of the principles of freedom, democracy and individual liberty that we also take for granted.

Anti-American protests only detract from the anti-Bush message - and that is, his policies are the very antithesis of this American ideal.

In taking to the streets against the US President, we are protesting Bush's policies of pre-emption and unilateralism; as they manifest in military action, trade negotiations, environmental and in terms of cultural imperialism.

And in doing so we join an increasing number of Americans who are rejecting Bush and the values he represents.

Americans like Michael Moore who famously wrote to Bush: "Instead of having to earn it, you have been handed the presidency the same way you've come by everything else in your life. Money and name alone have opened every door for you. Without effort or hard work or intelligence or ingenuity, you have been bequeathed a life of privilege."

American's like the Dixie Chicks who were pilloried by the Right for stating they were embarrassed to share a home state with the President, yet rewarded by fans with huge increases in sales.

And Americans like General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who knows more about war than Bush ever will and knows that pre-emption is dangerous and short-sighted and only this week stated:

"We are in a crisis in our relations with the rest of the world. Today, at a time when we need friends and allies more than ever, resentment of America has never been higher, and that makes every American less safe at home and abroad."

If the anti-Bush protests make Australians - and the world - laugh at Bush's ignorance, they will play a small part in strengthening the hands of the only people who can remove him from power - the American people.

But if they become an attack on America they will only add to the siege mentality that began on September 11 and continues to provide Bush with the cover he needs to promote all manner of madness and ignorance.

[Peter Lewis, Editor of Workers Online]

Walter Cronkite is not trusted.

Walter Croknite's editorials have been appearing in my local newspaper ever since he "came out of retirement", so to speak, to become an opinion writer. I've been appalled to see the anti-Bush and pro-Democrat slant in each and every one of them - without exception. For anyone to say that the Iraq liberation was "the worst policy decision ever made" has to be either delusional or senile or partisan, or, in Cronkite's case, all three.

The worst policy decision ever made? And this from the guy (Cronkite) who covered (Democrat) President Johnson's Vietnam War from start to finish? The Vietnam war which literally tore our country apart and killed over 54,000 American soldiers, wounded hundreds of thousands more, and killed and wounded hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of Vietnamese? You've got to be kidding me?

The worst policy decision ever made? And this from the guy (Cronkite) who saw the United States' (Democrat-Socialist) Roosevelt administration sit idly by while Adolph Hitler was running amuck in Europe conquering neighboring lands, killing tens of thousands, no, make that tens of millions of people? You've got to be kidding me?

The worst policy decision ever made? Did he (Cronkite) conveniently forget that having legalized SLAVERY was a POLICY DECISION? You've got to be kidding me?

GIVE ME A FRIGGIN' BREAK!

Walter Cronkite - a champion of environmentalism and alternative energy sources - who led the fight to block efforts to put wind farms near his precious Martha's Vineyard vacation home - who later did an about-face under mounting pressures and charges of hypocrisy, but is "still waiting" for a government study on the matter.

Walter Cronkite, just like Helen Thomas, can't hide behind his shroud of being an impartial journalist any more. His opinion pieces shine brightly on his partisan agenda. And let there be no doubt about it, Walter Cronkite has made his bias very clear.

From the outset, the Bush administration said that the Iraq liberation would not be a short term effort, but rather an endeavor that would take several years.

Chas, give me a break. Regardless you what you claim to be, politically speaking, your extreme liberalism and anti-conservative, anti-Republican views shine very brightly for all to see. But, of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as one-sided as they may be.

Julian, about your comments:

You said, "the President who never won an election"? With all due respect, Julian, you are either in denial, or you don't understand our electoral process (because he DID win the election), or you conveniently forgot (or didn't know) that the Bush opponents started and continued the court challenges (after several defeats), or you are proving those disingenuous comments made about you in the past. (Or all of the above.)

And you believe the likes of Michael Moore? Do you really know who - and what - Michael Moore really is? I'm sure you've heard me use the term, taking an ounce of truth and whipping up a pound of lies. Well, in Moore's case, he takes that pound of lies and whips up a ton of slander. Michael Moore is an American embarrassment.

You praise Wesley Clark as a former NATO commander, but you forgot to mention that he's a former FIRED NATO commander because he almost started a war with the Russians and was a general (no pun intended) pain-in-the-ass to every other military commander. Moreover, your assertion that he knows more than Bush when it comes to military matters becomes nonsense when compared to claims from other American (and British) Generals who DO believe Bush is doing the right thing and/or that Wesley Clark is dangerous.

How about General Colin Powell? Why not believe him - as a General - instead?

Read what British General Sir Mike Jackson had to say to Clark when he ordered him to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told General Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.

Read what the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, said about Wesley Clark. "I've known Wes for a long time," Shelton said. "I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. ... I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
Read what Retired Army Brig. Gen. David Grange, the U.S. commander in Bosnia (at that time), said about Wesley Clark. "Clark was so focused on succeeding that 'he would maybe not be cognizant of some of the feelings or concerns of some of the people around him. There's no question that General Clark is for General Clark".

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Marc Cisneros said Wesley Clark, "just outright lied".

And how about General Norman Schwarzkopf who was - and still is - in favor of President Bush's Iraq policy?

Wesley Clark, who praised Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush - and his administration along with their Iraq war efforts - until, of course, he decided to run for President himself.

That makes my six Generals against your one (And I didn't even dig into it looking for more.) It sounds to me that Wesley Clark is a self-serving liar.

Do the research for yourself to find the "Generals" who support Wesley Clark versus the ones who don't. You'll find scores of those against him, and very few - if any - supporting him.

Do the research for yourself to find the "Generals" who support George W. Bush versus the ones who don't. You'll find scores of Generals who support the President, and only one who doesn't - now that he's running for President himself, of course.

These discussions are just becoming too much for me.

I'm going to leave this one for all you Bush-bashers to have your little love feast without further comment from me. (But I reserve the right to change my mind.)

THE PRESIDENT:

Good morning. This weekend in Iraq, 750 Iraqi citizens completed their military training and became the first battalion of the new Iraqi army. For decades, Iraq's army served the interests of a dictator. Today a new army is serving the Iraqi people. And less than a year from now, Iraq will have a 40,000-member military force, trained and dedicated to protecting their fellow citizens.

Our coalition is helping to train and equip Iraq's new army, so that Iraqis can take over border protection and other security duties as soon as possible. Soldiers in the new battalion join more than 80,000 other Iraqis who are defending their country's security. Iraq now has a Civil Defense Corps of nearly 2,500, a border guard force of 4,700, and a facility protection service of over 12,000. And more than half of the Iraqis under arms are police officers, instructed by professionals like New York City's outstanding former police chief, Bernard Kerik. Iraq's neighbor, Jordan, has announced that it will help Iraq train additional police officers.

For three decades, the police in Iraq were the feared enforcers of a dictatorship. Now Iraq's new police are enforcing the just laws of an emerging democracy. Already the Iraqi police are assuming greater responsibility, and greater risks. This week, Iraqi officers aided a series of joint raids by American troops, leading to the arrest of more than 50 suspected criminals and terrorists. We're on the offensive against the desperate holdouts and Saddam loyalists who oppose progress in Iraq. The free nation we are helping to build will be free of them.

The United States is standing with the Iraqi people as they move toward self-government. My wartime funding request to Congress includes more than $5 billion [thousand million] to help the people of Iraq take responsibility for their own security. These funds will be used to prepare the Iraqi army, to train public safety and emergency personnel, and to establish a fair and effective judicial system.

Greater security is essential to Iraq's future. A secure Iraq will protect the nation's schools, and the hospitals that are opening, and the roads that are being built, and the water and power facilities we are repairing. Across Iraq, our coalition is turning over responsibility to the future leaders of that country. Those leaders include women. Just this weekend, a conference is being held at the University of Babylon to affirm the vital role of women in the Iraqi society.

The transition to self-government is a complicated process, because it takes time to build trust and hope after decades of oppression and fear. Yet we are making steady progress, and we will keep our promise to fully return Iraq's government to Iraq's people as soon as possible.

The men and women of our coalition have shown bravery and skill and compassion in Iraq. And they know their mission. They know that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities. Our forces know that a secure and sovereign Iraq will be a setback for terrorists, and an inspiration to all who dream of freedom in the Middle East. And the world can be certain, this essential mission in the war on terror will be completed.

-George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
October 4, 2003

not necessarily the content. Peter Lewis is saying that there WILL be protests when Bush visits Australia, but that if these protests are not conducted in an appropriate manner, they may lead to alienation between and Australia and its long-standing ally, the USA. I think the following excerpt from the article sums up its intention:

"That said, we would be foolish if we turned our protests into a round of Yank bashing, because in doing so we would be attacking many of the principles of freedom, democracy and individual liberty that we also take for granted."

I rest my case.

Circles. It was on something like thsi that I asked my first ever question and got ragged on by everyone.

I just can't get over how much things have changed in such a short time.

You said, "It is time for the US people to demand no new US aggression against foreign leaders without clear evidence of an imminent threat to the US or our allies."

Will you define "imminent threat"?

And by whose definition of "imminent threat" should we respond?

---------- Possible Scenario ----------

For example, let's assume that President Bush, in his daily security briefing, receives a report from the director of the CIA, George J. Tenet, that he has what he considers reliable intelligence information that a terrorist group currently training inside Syria is planning a series of coordinated and simultaneous terrorist attacks on a dozen U.S. targets around the globe, some of which are inside the United States. He further reports that British intelligence has confirmed these reports as being reliable. Moreover, it is reported that these same training facilities have been the home base for several terrorist attacks on Israel, resulting in the deaths of dozens of innocent civilians, including women and children.

Furthermore, it is confirmed by these same intelligence sources that the military regime in Damascus, with the support of President Bashar al-ASAD, is sponsoring the terrorist mission by knowingly allowing the training facility within Syria, and is acting as a middle-man through which funds are being funneled to the terrorists.

The recommended action by the President's security advisors is to launch (from aircraft carriers currently in the Persian Gulf) a limited "surgical strike" inside Syria to destroy the terrorist training facility and "neutralize" all personnel at the facility. It is further recommended that a stern warning be sent to Syrian President Bashar al-ASAD to cease all connections with known terrorists lest he will be faced with a second strike on government facilities in Damascus.

---------- End of Scenario ----------

Would that be considered an "imminent threat"?

If yes, would military action be justified?

If not, why not?

Should the President consult Congress?

Should the President ask the UN for a "resolution" for military action?

Walter has his opinions - and if you want to blindly follow like a sheep - rather than making up your own mind then you get what you what you ask for..

A Land of Sheep - like we were under Clinton - Listen to what news people say - but why blindly accept it without your own research and brain..

Walter is old and I would bet has a little problem with memory - Use your own brain - and don't blindly follow like sheep ..

Iraq's national electricity network - crippled by war, looting and sabotage - has surpassed the production levels of the prewar period for the first time in six months, U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer reported Thursday. "On Monday, Oct. 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts, exceeding the prewar average," Bremer said at a news conference at which he trumpeted accomplishments of the U.S.-led occupation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported the prewar peak to be 4,500 megawatts.

Bremer reported the improved electricity situation at a news conference at which he cataloged accomplishments under the U.S. occupation, which is generally dated to April 9, when U.S. troops took command of central Baghdad.

"Most of what has happened since then, not all of it, has been good," he said. His list included:

* More than 13,000 reconstruction projects completed.

* More than 40,000 police on duty nationwide, including 7,000 in Baghdad, compared with virtually none at the war's end.

* A first battalion of a retrained Iraqi army graduated from basic training and on active duty.

* Twenty-two universities and 43 institutes and colleges open, along with almost all primary and secondary schools.

* An increase in deliveries of pharmaceuticals from 800 tons in May to 12,000 tons.

* Clearing of 8,000 miles of irrigation canals.

* Establishment of 170 newspapers.

"In six short months, we have accomplished a lot, but we're also aware the progress we have made is only a beginning," Bremer said.

He acknowledged that "much remains to be done to establish an acceptable security environment."

I'm really shocked to see this discussion. I am also quite happy to see an American suggest that other Americans should POSSIBLY revaluate their political stand. I don't think everyone will change thier views, but just to see someone from the USA even make the suggestion is quite uplifting.

I won't to into a detailed opinion at this time as I can't read all the posts to get an overview of opinions. I'm camping and will get a slap for using my notebook so I'll read more tomorrow and chat later.

OM

This question is often asked in the context of the justification for the war, as if that were the only reason given by the Bush Administration. To those who watched the last State of the Union address, this is easily refuted.

Iraq is a big nation, geographically. The Iraqis were going to great lengths to hide WMD programs from UN inspectors. The following link shows just how far the Iraqis were willing to go to hide their efforts..

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=mig25-1.htm

At least I think he was a Democrat (which surprised me, by the way), who recently returned from a trip to Iraq. He said that the rebuilding effort was going MUCH better than he had heard reported in the press, and that the constant barrage of negatine press coverage was hurting the effort - including the security efforts.

I'll post his name and exact quotes if I find them.

I'm sure that the 90% of what's going on in Iraq could fall into the "positive" category, while 10% is negative. Of course, 90% of the press coverage is reporting only that negative 10%.

And if ANYONE is playing the "partisan" card here, it should be quite clear that it's the Democrats (except this particular Congressman) and the biased news media.

I'd read somewhere, and for the life of me I can't recall where, that back in the 70's or so the U.S. administration was responsible for putting the Baath Party in power in the first place.

The previous ruler was ousted and U.S. political backing, strong-arming, whatever... was responsible for putting him in power. They, at one point, had really high hopes for Saddam.

If this is true, wouldn't it then be OUR responsibility to get Iraq back to square one? Political preferences aside, it just seems like the right thing to do.

I can almost hear it being stated from a six year olds point of view... "you put him there!!! YOU get him out!!"

I'm not commenting on the military/political action or aftermath, just wondering if, by laws of nature, it wasn't something we HAD to do.

Who do you believe and why?

----------

Do you believe the majority of Democrats?

or

Do you believe the majority of Republicans?

----------

Do you believe ABC, CBS, and NBC?

or

Do you believe Fox News?

----------

Do you believe Walter Cronkite?

or

Do you believe William Safire?

----------

Do you believe the New York Times?

or

Do you believe the Washington Times?

----------

Do you believe George W. Bush?

or

Do you believe Howard Dean (or other Democrat Presidential candidates)?

----------

Do you believe General Colin Powell?

or

Do you believe General Wesley Clark?

----------

Do you believe Dan Rather?

or

Do you believe Tony Snow?

----------

Unless you are privy to ALL intelligence information AND have been to, and spent a lot of time in Iraq, both before and after Saddam, AND you have ALL the information pertaining to EVERYTHING relating to Iraq.....the bottom line is that you (and I) don't know squat about any of this - except for what we hear from any number of sources, all of which, when taken in full context and in its entirety, will ALL contradict each other.

So who do you believe and why?

"so what qualifies you to know who may or may not be brainwashed and/or who may or may not be accurate in their assessments?"

I don't believe everything I read or hear, regardless of the source. I often see politicians, generals etc on TV making different statements, AND WITHOUT POLITICAL PREDJUDICE, make up an opinion of MY OWN based on what is being said against what I see and hear from other sources.

Your own political predjudices are what makes you susceptible to 'brainwashing'. You refuse to listen to viewpoint from any party other than that which you support fully. Therefore you're opinions are clouded and why I consider this a form of 'brainwashing'.

I haven't made any political references in my statements, other than I FEEL that the war was and is unjust (LONG BEFORE IT STARTED)based on my views from ALL sides. This gives me tha ability to form an opinion based on what I believe and what I don't. Not just that Mr. X said so, so I'm going that way because we have the same political views. As said before, Petriotism may end up to be the death of America, or certainly it's worst enemy.

"Why aren't the "anti-Bush" people the ones who are brainwashed?"

I'll use YOUR methodology to answer that one.
I belive in Chas and his open minded way of forming a personal opinion, there are many times when I don't like what you've said and therefore I distrust and disagree with anything you say, so should everyone else because we dont have similar political views.

Sounds pretty dumb doesn't it? But we're all expected to believe it when you do it?

Be responsible for policing the world? That's just plain arrogance. What is best for your people is best for all?

"...USA, and seem to resent it's projection of influence around the world."

Of course, why should any country project it's influence around the world? Why have you appointed YOURSELVES as that country? Who did it last time?
I think that may be a solo opinion of yours, I don't think any other country (since Hitler's Nazi Germany in WW2) has felt it neccessary to invade and bomb a country in order to push it's beliefs and government on it (Saddam aside, unless you are comparing your actions with his now).

"...he isn't worried about his re-election camp yet... He is worried about the American Economy and the Iraq war - are his two big ones..."

Uh....sure. You're not really serious are you?

Your knowledge of Canada is uncanny!
"I guess nothing else to do when you get "SNOWED" ... in"

I think we got less than 3" of snow last year that lasted about a week. In contrast, England got more snow than Vancouver last year.

Today, the middle of Ovtober, it's chillier at about

The year before, I don't think we had ANY snow. Th moutains closed early and spring skiing was a no show. So besides the fact that we don't get the snow that scared you out of Newfoundland, I can't help you. You do realize that Newfies are Canadian Polaks right? (In the sense of the jokes, not the race).

"You don't know the first thing about Michael Moore, but sure feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him. You've probably read ZERO of Walter Cronkite's editorial columns, but you feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him, even though I've read probably all of them."

Cronkite, yes I have seen and heard many of his comments but not as many as one with your higher intelligence. My point was not to say these people were right or wrong, just that you flame a POST based on it's sources, then provide your own sources that are extremely one sided. What is to make YOUR ststements and beliefs better than another? Michael Moore, although I haven't followed his every move since birth, I feel he has made MANY statements that I do see as valid. I also see his right wing views going to far sometimes and realize that he usually has full editing control over his public statements. Doesn't everyone else though? It's a matter of taking what's said as it is and sorting out the BS for yourself.

I have neither a positive or negative view towards Moore but won't turn down his statements because of WHO HE IS and that he doesn't fit my political parties objectives.

YOU DO have a right to YOUR opinjion, but oh so often seem to deny anyone else's opinion by stating that thier sources are incredible, however, you rebut this with a bunch of one sided poilitical opinions by those that YOU agree with.

That's not a debating skill, it's defamatory to the person who made the original statement in declaring them to be invalid statements because others that YOU believe in disagree.

Well we know that the GI's in Vietnam were sent to an almost certain death, had to push forward with little or no reasons given, had to endure some horrific sights that someone who wasn't there could not begin to conceive. That war is over now.

Anyhow, it's now 2003, your government is still up to sending citizens to die and then backstabbing them when they return.
I've noticed that the soldiers returning from Iraq are being spit on and degraded for thier actions by fellow Americans, or maybe that was a Vietnam documentary.

People aren't blaming soldiers for fighting this war, they are blaming YOUR president for STARTING it in he first place. It was unjustified, is still unjustified and unless Saddam rides a WMD into America it will ALWAYS be unjustified.

Bottom line, it's not the soldiers, it's the freak who sends them to thier deaths.

You need to keep up!

I've never respected you poiyical views! I don't care what you're told, or what you tell me, I've always disagreed with your comments in a political forum.

BRAINWASHED may have been taken out of context a bit though. What I meant is that it seems once people make a political decision, be it Repub. Demo. Liberal or whatever, you will stand by ANY and ALL comments made by ANYONE even slightly related to that party and deem all other information useless based on it's political stance. THIS is ignorance at it's best or what I call "BRAINWASHED"

Everyone seems to miss the point that Sadam agreed to terms after the first Gulf War in which failure to comply with the terms of his SURRENDER would result in military action against him.

After innumerable United Nations Resolutions that were ignored Sadam was laughing at the spineless excuse of World Government called the United Nations. President Bush did not need any other excuse to go into Iraq than that.

However, many of the mindless World citizens who oppose violence and war but for some strange reason accepted Sadam's inhumane terror and efforts to cause anarchy as 'OK' will never be satisfied with the United States taking the high road. The United States did right.

Cronkites remarks are a bit myoptic. "He is setting an example for every nation in the world, if you don't like what's going on with your neighbor it's perfectly all right to go to war with them," It seems to me Sadam was already doing that.

The United States of America is a Liberator of oppressed people. We stand tall and carry the flame for freedom. Our form of Government has been here for over 200 years because it IS just.

When I see a Unites States soldier telling an Iraqi national its okay to come out or a US soldier helping an despondent Iraqi citizen and I see the American flag on his shoulder I am proud of who we are and what we do.

"So who are you to suggest that I haven't, read, heard, or considered all sides before forming my opinion?"
I don't remember saying that YOU don'tresearch your information. I think you probably do, except with a biased opinion before and during reading the media you mention. I believe YOU DO read a Liberal Magazine, probably while thinking "Liberal B.S." in the back of your head because it's not written by the almighty BUSH and his fans. BUT this could also be wrong, you may actually start to read with an open mind but soon will deny it's truth as it doesn't coincide with YOUR beliefs, this of course is completely normal for anyone with any political views.

"And you haven't read ANY of these - yet you scream the loudest about others being "misinformed". You've even admitted to being one of the most uninformed people around."

Let's back up a bit.

Saying I don't give a flying F*&k about Canada's politics or that Bush is either a Republican or Democrat doesn't mean that I don't read, hear and watch the crap that spews from my TV every night.

I don't care WHAT party Bush is a member of, I will never bote in America and therefore who YOU pick to lead your country is up to you. When YOUR CHOSEN (or so you say he was actually elected) leader starts a war that involves the country I live in and then involves our citizens, it is my completely acceptable to voice my dislike toward your LEADER. If I don't believe in your president, that's fine. If everyone I speak to, overhear and listen to on my TV dislikes your president it is also my right to voice my opinion.
When your President quietly sits in his oval office and gets a hummer from the staff, that's fine, as long as it doesn't involve me, the country in which I live or those who I love.

In the case of THIS war, I disagreed with the motives and intentions from the start. TO this I've been told that there WERE WMD, then thst Saddam had mass graves (yet this was not your reason for the war so it's not justification), that Canadians don't support the USA and that the French are backstabbing you. I've learned about many wars unrelated to this one, as they are used as a means to justify Bush's actions.
I've learned that Americans feel that they are a superior people (although America is just a hodgepodge of every other race), that America has the best military, that America saved Europes ass in WWII and I even remember someone saying that the Ameican police force is the world's best.

Now, you wonder why I feel (as most of the world does)that Americans are self-serviant, arrogant and delusional? Climb over the fence and see reality for yourself.

Note, you may not agree with the truth, you may not want to see it or you may warp it to suit your needs but the truth is, I'm not alone on this one, Bush is as evil as Saddam in many eyes, too bad your's will be closed come the next erection.

I heard that Canada is building Weapons of Mass Destruction in the form of REAL beer and shiping it to America as Coors light. Are we next then?

First of all, the whole notion of don't complain unless you have a resolution was set out as a management standoff for disgruntled emlpoyees. No employee couls complain because in MOST companies, the resources to offer better solutions are not made available to staff. This is something to tell 5 year old children, NOT a way to conduct your adult life. I've been guilty of the same thing many times, Don't come to me unless you've got a better idea than what is being done now. It's kindergarten not reality, it's also a cop-out for someone who doesn't want to see change.

If you can make a decision, you can accept the repercussions and expect criticism. Let's not treat each other like toddlers.
Baby>>"I don't want to see THAT movie"

Mum>>'Do you have another movie you want to see?'

Baby>>"I dunno, but I don't want to see this one"

Mum>>'well we will see this one unless you've got a better idea'

GROW UP, IT'S CHILDISH! Someone can express dislike without having a better idea, who started that stupid statement anyhow?

We should have either built a broader coalition, or been more open in sharing the intelligence with the UN Security Council.

At a minimum, we should have had a group of prominent Iraqi ex-patriots ready to step in as a temporary government.

I have little doubt that the intelligence data was "interpreted" to support a pre-conceived viewpoint.

Neither the President or his advisers look at the "raw" intelligence data. They review reports compiled by the intelligence staff.

After years working for corporations, it is not a stretch to believe that the mid-level security staff would 'tailer' their reports to support the position that the administration desires.

Yes, now that we have destroyed Iraq, we need to help rebuild the country. And finish what we started by finding Saddam or his remains.

The biggest folly of the war in Iraq is the advice given that it would be easy to set up a new government, and that the people of Iraq would embrace their liberators.

We need to be aware that our actions have made the world LESS SAFE. By destroying 1 man, we have given a new cause to hundreds of terrorists.

Chas

While you're busy congratulating yourself on your "enlightened" restraint, do a little web surfing.

Several terrorist cells have been broken up in Great Britain and Germany. Bombings and assassinations occur in such world powers as Bali(well known for their constant meddling in Arab lands).

Should Iraq have been able to develop WMD, are you ready to let them get in the first punch in order to salvage your sense of fairness?

Like you said, this isn't 1953. Folks who believe that other folks don't have a right to live now have access to things that allow them to kill thousands.

Your logic is hopelessly skewed by your selective consideration of the facts.

If there are no police (don't even try to make a case for the UN) then someone has to fill the breach.

If you are any indication of the bravery of your countrymen, I feel sorry for your girlfriend. I guess you will see fit to become involved somewhere after the first rapist....

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and feelings on the issues voiced in this thread. But get a clue and voice your opinions in a more appropriate forum.

This is certainly not the place and all of these mutterings, however noble, are inappropriate.

A Freudian slip is a generally accepted term for a misstatement that possibly betrays an underlying opinion, or desire.

Usage of the term does not indicate acceptance of Freud's psychiatric dogma, nor retain it's original clinical context.

As an aside, my aren't we getting testy? Now that your outrageous and unsubstantiated attacks on this nation, it's members in this forum, and it's President are being refuted wholesale by us, now you are showing your true debating acumen.... zip, zero, nada, bagel, bupkis.

Go away kid, the adults are talking here!

The US space program as stagnated. Maybe a little competition will get us off our ass and prompt an initiative to go to Mars.

As for China going to the moon, I'd like to see that as well. It will rekindle interest in colonization, an important step in mankind's destiny. I hope they don't try to annex the moon though. America did not claim the moon, and China shouldn't either. I think an Antarctica type of scenario should be hammered out.

I read somewhere that (fark, I think) that some guy is selling 5 acre plots on the moon. Nations are forbidden by treaty in claiming the moon, but individuals are not. As I understand it, this guy filed "legal" deeds in his state and federally.

Are the "Capricorn One" types going to spend 30 years saying that the Chinese landing didn't happen either?

I don't trust anyone farther than I can throw them.

On the other hand, the only way to find out what is really going on with any government is to gain as much knowlege from as many sources as possible and weed out what you think is the b.s.

Look at the Space race prior to 1960's when Sputnik went up... spooked the US into action. Well now China is rattling NASA's cage - and maybe they will get off ground zero and get back in the race..

I for one are happy to see it - it will add quality and competiveness to the race.

I wouldn't worry about the spy's in the sky .. US already has hundreds looking down on them - it will be good someone will look down on us... keep them on their toes...

Also - the US already calmed the moon for All of Man Kind - IE no country can land there and clam it for their country... its already been clamed for everyone .. One small step for man - One graint step for Mankind..

You bro - you always tell me Backup - and reread my post - me thinks you need to reread your own..

From your post - "How about looking at ALL available information, listening to the angry as well as happy Iraqi's on enws erports. Watching several diferent channels with different political agles. Learning what people on BOTH sides think and THEN fomulating your opinion based on a collaboration of information. Not just saying, "I'm a republican, I will support Bush and defame all those who oppose." 'Yes, master' "

It reads to me that you called Max - what he thinks you called him .. and he has rightfully defended himself - you then say "I never said that" - "You miss read my post" - "Wasn't Me" -

Oh well bro - Enjoy your camping vacation - watch out for the "Loins and Tigers and Bears - Oh my"

Restoring thier infrastructure also includes the telecommunications pathways. Part of any democracy is the self-worth and dignity. These are best derived through having a job. Jobs are possible through a strong economy. A strong economy builds the infrastructure.

Right now the United States is pumping wads of cash into Iraq. At some point there needs to be a shift from US support to free enterprise. The sooner the better. The two key elements to a getting there is the logistics and communication networks.

So with that thought how can the digital profit model and information technology accelerate Iraq's recovery from the Sadam blight?

Just a clarification-

Bali is part of Indonesia, a largely Islamic country. The attacked night club was a favorite for tourists, mostly Australians. Australia is a "western" nation in its base, and thus fits into a likely terrorist target.

Islam has grown to many of the Pacific Islands. In that respect, Australia would be rather coveted by those who would expand its influence even more. As well, Australia is probably even more 'evil' than the US with their relatively risque ways...

So, bombing a Bali club full of Aussies would be a great way to expell some of those evil tourists and get you cause mentioned all over the evil-doers' homeland.

Of talking to you, you rarely have anything to say that is a relevant rebuttal but if you insist on being a nutbag,
"Should Iraq have been able to develop WMD, are you ready to let them get in the first punch in order to salvage your sense of fairness?"

>>The WMD was SPECULATION! Don't even go there, it's not a justified reason for war. Get over it, it's old news.

As for letting someone rape my girlfriens, does this mean that you feel any guy looking at your wife or girlfriend needs a beating? You sound like one of those really insecure guys that knows his partner would leave for a bigger .... at the first chance. Get a grip !

Yuo have the unvbelievable ability to either not understand a single word you read, take everything out of it's context or simply have zero intelligence and no comprehension of anything in your life.

I've had enough of your mental ramblings, later.

Great minds think alike.

Stupid ones seldom differ.