Iraq War: Any Alternatives?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

OUBobcatLifter,

[quote]OUBobcatLifter wrote:
Anyone who is sane will agree that Saddam is crazy and that nuclear weapons in his hands would be a big problem. These solutions admittedly have their flaws as I don’t claim to be an expert, but I do think they are at least possiblities.

I wonder if this mess could have been avoided had we been more involved in the peace process in the middle east. If Iraq could have been assured of its own security, perhaps it would have been more apt to end its weapons programs and comply with the UN. Iraq has a history of war. For protective purposes it would make sense for them to have weapons. With no threat, Iraq would have less reason to create such weapons. [/quote]

In principle I agree. I am not so sure of crazy dictator types - look at North Korea. No one wants to invade that country, but it still arms itself with whatever it can get. Arming your country against hostile neighbours is legitimate, but there has to be limit. Saddam had a history of using the weapons (we all supplied him with) to fight his neighbours and his own people. This behaviour is unacceptable.

Actually, they were in again - but had to leave as not to get bombed by the coalition of the willing. And you have my full support when it comes to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. In the latter case, I guess, the war was necessary. In the former - just cutting them out of the circle of friends of certain presidents might be of help.

Yeay, I agree!

Saddam was not exactly loved by his people and his peers - but I agree with your general idea: It would help if the “West” would meddle less in the Middle East but be more constructive - no deals with dictators and a more balanced approach towards Israel’s policies.

I wouldn’t call it lies (has unfortunately not been proven), but faulty intelligence due to a strong wish to see only one kind of evidence. Wait - isn’t that lying to yourself… ah… getting confused. :wink:

[quote]Look at a newspaper from 25 years ago. The faces and names have changed, but the same problems remain. My question is why? Our leaders continue to make the same mistakes again and again. This is not a a result of the right or left wing. It is a mess created by both.

My hope with this situation is that we learn from the situation in Iraq and do not get into this situation again. If we do learn, perhaps this war will not be the mistake that liberals have painted it to be (and then maybe we can solve the problems with education, poverty, health care, and all that fleeces us).[/quote]

Could not agree more.

Makkun

42

JeffR,

My biggest problem with the whole war is that it provides more rationale for terrorists. Granted, they are irrational to begin with, but I just believe that due to the nature of terrorism, you can’t just suppress it with conventional military force. If I thought that would work, I’d be all for it, but there’s one big issue: terrorists are disguised as people. They are not real people, they are bombs in disguise. But there is no way to really prevent terrorist activities without severe repression of civil rights.

In talks with one of my friends about it, there was one case of stopping guerrila forces with conventional military means. The Nazi’s stopped Polish (I think) rebels by bulldozing their entire town. Obviously not good PR.

The Soviet Spetsnaz forces were effective for being absolutely ruthless in their use of force. In Afgahnistan, they were feared by all the people. But they got the job done. I figure our special ops forces could do well with some intelligence network, but the heart of the matter is that terrorists see some of our actions and use them as rationale. If we could improve the world’s view of us, that would probably help our situation.

43

Makkun,

Thanks for your detailed response.

Before I write anything more, I need to understand exactly what you are contending.

Your original assertion is that the German Government was not involved in circumventing sanctions and no German Government officials were involved.

After my posts, it appears you are now backpeddling and making an assertion that it was Kohl’s government and not Schroeder’s government that gave direct/tacit approval to some of this illegal activity.

Do I understand your new stance correctly?

Think through this quite carefully before answering.

If you believe this, then I want you to state clearly that with 80 German companies fingered as being suppliers including German Defense firms, that you don’t think there was ANY government complicity/response to public/private pressure in accepting these agreements.

I guess I’m having a real hard time understanding what your point is. Do you honestly believe that your government is above reproach in this matter?

I find that hard to believe.

That just isn’t how governments operate. Somewhere along the line, with 80 companies and untold numbers of individuals BUILDING ENTIRE PLANTS IN IRAQ, someone in an offical capacity had to know. How about issuing visas or acceptance for transfer of materials from Germany to Iraq?

Finally, as you can tell, I’m a Republican. That being said, I wouldn’t contend that NO Republican government official knew about the twenty four U.S. companies supplying Saddam.

Help me out and be as clear as possible.

I’ve found a substantial amount of information on German Government/Industry activities from 1975-2001. I want to streamline this argument to make it as specific as possible.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

44

JeffR,

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun,

Thanks for your detailed response.

Before I write anything more, I need to understand exactly what you are contending.

Your original assertion is that the German Government was not involved in circumventing sanctions and no German Government officials were involved.[/quote]

My original assertion was that your claim that the German gouvernment was “bribed” by Saddam and hence voted against the war was wrong. If I may quote you: “Your Anti-American bias shows quite clearly when you refuse to condemn what appears to be Saddam’s massive bribery of France/Germany/Russia and the U.N. Where is your outrage?
You understand, of course, that the money from the Oil for Food program was going into the afore mentioned government coffers INSTEAD OF INTO STARVING IRAQI CHILDREN’S MOUTHS!!!”

I asked you to back that up and you couldn’t prove that the current German gouvernment (that is the one that made the decision not to go to war) was bribed and had any involvement into circumventing the embargo. But all your quotes so far have not proven this allegation - even for the Kohl gouvernment, that I wasn’t exactly a fan of.

Since you widened your argument to all German gouvernments (as it seems even the East German until 1989) it made sense to come up with a little more diversification. Yes, the French, the British, the German and the American gouvernments turned a blind eye to deals with Saddam when he was favoured as a champion against Iran - it is kinda inconsequent to hold that only against Germany and France. But even then - according to your own quotes - there has been no active gouvernment policy, no official line to trade illegal goods with him, no bribes going to German gouvernment officials - this has been shown by the (unfortunately many) cases when people were tried in Germany for dealings with Iraq; and that is supported by your own sources.

[quote]Do I understand your new stance correctly?

Think through this quite carefully before answering.[/quote]

Given the fact that I have not changed it, I am not sure, as your argument constantly jumps between decades and administrations. That is fine, but it does not help you prove your point.

So far none has been proven. So you have no right to claim a bias in the decision to go to war due to bribery. That is my argument. If they did - and it has not been proven, I repeat - that would increase the likelihood of foul play when it came to their resistance against the US’s willingness to go to war. Luckily, all sources quoted have not given that impression. Do I trust my politicians? Nope. But as long as there is no proof, I cannot hold that against them. Neither can you.

Not at all. They (consecutive German gouvernments) seem pretty incompetent in dealing with companies who wanted to circumvent the rules - but not corrupt as you allege. Call them incompetent, and I will chime in - call them bribed and you are out of line.

[quote]I find that hard to believe.

That just isn’t how governments operate. Somewhere along the line, with 80 companies and untold numbers of individuals BUILDING ENTIRE PLANTS IN IRAQ, someone in an offical capacity had to know. How about issuing visas or acceptance for transfer of materials from Germany to Iraq?[/quote]

Go back to your own sources - read Rietz’s account on how the Iraqis did it. Even read that strategic paper you quoted. That describes the situation quite well. The incompetence is shocking, I give you that. It very well illustrates the problems companies (turned perpetrators) had in actually keeping track of what was legal and illegal, as a lot of the technology seems to have been of dual purpose. And it raises the question if in some cases more state control of globally acting companies might make sense (but I don’t want to start arguments with the free market fraction - so I better shut up here).

Hopefully they did not know - that would line them up for a trial. Have there been any in the US on that issue? I know I asked that before. Don’t get me wrong - I value your scepticism concerning your own gouvernment, and believe me, I share it for my own (and yours). Still I wouldn’t allege something as a fact or premise of an argument that has not been proven.

[quote]Help me out and be as clear as possible.

I’ve found a substantial amount of information on German Government/Industry activities from 1975-2001. I want to streamline this argument to make it as specific as possible.[/quote]

I’ve noticed that - but I can’t help you, really. As long as your initial argument - that the German gouvernment has been bribed - is not proven, no number of accounts can support it. If you are willing to step back from that, we might actually have an discussion, instead of a debate.

Makkun

PS: I will miss that argument - I’ll be busy next week, so I don’t know if I can do that much research. And I admit that it is indeed “educating” - and I am thankful for that.

45

[quote]vroom wrote:
JeffR,

Is it your goal to personally destroy the level of conversation in the political forums?

Your childish posts, ridiculous cheerleading antics and a total inability to actually bother to discuss anything, are downright drivel.

Single-handedly you are dragging the political forums into the abyss. Congratulations for having such a large impact with such little contribution.[/quote]

jeez what a cry baby!..suck me into the abyss…i’m ready!

46

[quote]makkun wrote:
Alternative to attacking Iraq - almost too simple… :wink: How about not attacking Iraq? How about assessing the “threat” and concentrating on the real international issues - some of them even would have an effect on the war on terror (like supporting the middle-east peace process not pulling out of it for so long, bolstering and cleaning up the UN and making it a properly acting international body, joining the International Criminal Court, putting pressure on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and not to forget Russia and China towards embracing human rights, trading less weapons, fighting hunger and poverty, giving the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay proper and fair trials, and … hm, and even going after Saddam with all of your allies’ support in the end).

That would be a start and a lot of fields to put effort into.

Makkun

PS: Merry Christmas, Happy Hannuka and for me and all the other drunken atheists: Look out…! ;-)[/quote]
kumbaya my lord, kumbaya…
…eye roll…why dont we add to your list: xx) find the lost city of atlantis… now back to reality…as long as there is greed and hate…there will be war. might as well regulate! i thought atheists big claim to fame is their ability to think logically…what happened to you?

47

makkun and JeffR:

Interesting give and take!

A thought:
Whether or not German government ‘knew’ and or got bribed, the situation seems to show the utter uselessness of sanctions.

Actually, worse than useless, sanctions probably did more damage over time than if the world just had the balls to take out Saddam after the very first time he broke the cease-fire agreement.

48

ems_girlscout,

[quote]ems_girlscout wrote:
makkun wrote:
Alternative to attacking Iraq - almost too simple… :wink: How about not attacking Iraq? How about assessing the “threat” and concentrating on the real international issues - some of them even would have an effect on the war on terror (like supporting the middle-east peace process not pulling out of it for so long, bolstering and cleaning up the UN and making it a properly acting international body, joining the International Criminal Court, putting pressure on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and not to forget Russia and China towards embracing human rights, trading less weapons, fighting hunger and poverty, giving the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay proper and fair trials, and … hm, and even going after Saddam with all of your allies’ support in the end).

That would be a start and a lot of fields to put effort into.

Makkun

PS: Merry Christmas, Happy Hannuka and for me and all the other drunken atheists: Look out…! :wink:

kumbaya my lord, kumbaya…
…eye roll…why dont we add to your list: xx) find the lost city of atlantis… now back to reality…as long as there is greed and hate…there will be war. might as well regulate![/quote]

Interesting viewpoint. So instead of putting effort into alternatives (as requested by the thread) we should just succumb to the conclusion that war is inevitable and join in the fun. Don’t know what that exactly has to do with changing a few policies and using some of the alleged military and political strength the US has to “regulate” a few internal and external issues, but have it your way. So - besides from singing, do you have any arguments to offer?

You’re thinking Vulcans - not atheists. :wink:

Makkun

PS: Nice nickname btw.

49

makkun and JeffR

Thanks for the general compliments. I guess working at a publicly regulated utility and having time to read 5 newspapers a day has some benefits.

The biggest thing that concerns me about this Iraq issue is what the long term consequences may be. One possible unintended effect may be a strong division between the shiate and sunni. Zarqawi for example has said the the shiates are “unclean”. Now the only quesiton is if that is a good or a bad in the war on terror.

50

Makkun,

Thanks again for your in-depth response.

I think you and I are quibbling about terminology.

You object to the word “bribed” when describing the two salient Governments in question: Kohl’s and Schroeder’s.

I’m willing to ammend the terminology and change it to: “Obviously influenced by German Business dealings” Or, the “German Government was complicit in the transfers of illegal weaponry.”

Kohl’s Government has to be included in any serious discussion of arms dealings with Hussein and the decision to go to war.

Schroeder inherited the burden and the responsibility of German/Hussein dealings much the same way that W. inherited it from Reagan/Bush1/Clinton.

The difference is how they responded.

Germany decided to shirk their responsibility to clean up the Iraqi mess by offering combat forces. Worse, they made public declarations againt the war. I contend, that as one of the most responsible parties (if not, the number one arms dealer) to Hussein, Germany had an obligation, nay, a duty to bring about the downfall of Hussein.

You contend that there have been prosecutions against illegal arms dealings in Germany. I applaud them. However, you can’t seriously contend that the German prosecution has been either broad enough or effective enough to curtail the enormous degree of illegal arms dealings with Hussein (up to 2001, I might add).

Why is that?

I hope you can see that some of us believe that your government’s prosecutions are probably more symbolic than in earnest.

Here is an interesting article that highlights my argument:

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=90-82.

I’ll PM it to you to make sure it goes through.

In summary, I’ve found a great deal of information highlighting the German Government/Industry’s role in illegal arms transfers.

I’ve shown you that the Finance minister representative reported that the German Parliment knew all along about the weapons’ transfers. I’ve shown the total inefficiency of German prosecutions (through incompetence/or lack of will/or both) with regard to Hussein.

We can quibble about terminology, but it’s hard to argue that Germany lived up to their duty to disarm Hussein.

Germany has dirt on their hands. It’s unfortunate that political expediency took precidence over principle. With Germany’s awful reputation over a large portion of the past 100+ years of aggression and unspeakable crimes, it would seem to have been an opportune time to show once and for all that Germany has learned their lesson about supporting tyrannical murderers.

JeffR

51

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR: Almost everything you accuse Iraq of the U.S. is guilty of as well. But of course you only apply criticism to our “official enemies”.

Right and wrong apply to everyone including this country’s leaders.

Where are your sources to say we are guilty of these things? Saddam should of been taken out years ago. Clinton should of finished his ass. Saddam broke resolutions. He messed up on his “parole”, now he is in jail. Also, you can’t really compromise with someone who has torture chambers. We tried it once (after the Gulf War) and it won’t happen again.

[/quote]

I guess the U.S. can’t be compromised since they tortured people a few months ago.

52

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I guess the U.S. can’t be compromised since they tortured people a few months ago.[/quote]

What? I suppose we cut their heads off and sent the videotapes to Al Jazeera, too, huh? Come on.

53

I’m all for the Germans staying out of wars. As a people, they have a binary violence complex – either no action, or mass murder and brutality on a breathtaking scale.

I’d rather have German hippies with beards than SS troops. Let’s replace Krupps with Stay-Puft and Hechler-Koch with Nabisco.

54

JeffR

sorry for answering late - I was on holiday; and even off from the internet.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun,

Thanks again for your in-depth response.

I think you and I are quibbling about terminology.

You object to the word “bribed” when describing the two salient Governments in question: Kohl’s and Schroeder’s.

I’m willing to ammend the terminology and change it to: “Obviously influenced by German Business dealings” Or, the “German Government was complicit in the transfers of illegal weaponry.”[/quote]

I respect your flexibility in that issue. But I cannot agree - see below.

[quote]Kohl’s Government has to be included in any serious discussion of arms dealings with Hussein and the decision to go to war.

Schroeder inherited the burden and the responsibility of German/Hussein dealings much the same way that W. inherited it from Reagan/Bush1/Clinton.[/quote]

On the first issue, I agree: the Kohl gouvernment joined the trend among western nations in the 80ies and made itself guilty of playing down Hussein as a dictator who should not be supported. Like everyone else did. And Schroeder did inherit that history, but not that attitude. I disagree when it comes to how it was handled by him: There is no evidence that the current German gouvernment’s decision not to go to war, was influenced by the same forces that did all those deals with Iraq. No minister from Kohl’s times is still in service, quite a few people have been put into jail for these deals and there has been no proof of Oil-for-Food resources given to German gouvernment officials.

Indeed. If we go back to the Kohl/Reagan/Bush I era, the gouvernments indeed acted quite differently - while in Germany breaches of regulations and laws were prosecuted (albeit often incompetently), in the US, they were not. I quote:
"Iraq continued its use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces throughout the war. The issue became more problematic for the Reagan administration, however, in the spring and summer of 1988, when Iraq engaged in chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds in the village of Halabja and at other locations. As early as September 2, the State Department confirmed an attack against Kurdish insurgents that had taken place on August 25, while a memorandum to the secretary of state commented that "the failure of the international community to mobilize an effective response has lowered the inhibitions on use of these weapons in the region and elsewhere.“5 Nevertheless, the Reagan administration opposed congressional efforts to respond by imposing economic sanctions, arguing that they would be contrary to U.S. interests. Among the possible negative results cited were the endangerment of contracts for “massive postwar reconstruction” in Iraq.6 The administration succeeded in blocking the legislation.” http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm

Here, you actually have gouvernment involvement and business interests entangled in a very problematic way. Did anyone go to jail for this? No. And - after the intermezzo of the Clinton years - quite a few US policy makers from then are also policy makers today. Does that make the US as a whole guilty? No - but it weakens the argument that other countries were entangled with Iraq and therefore their arguments against the war suspect.

Yes, they showed weakness - in the 80s when they followed the trend to support Saddam; and then they put effort into the systems that Germany has been relying on in international affairs for decades to bring Saddam down. Was that enough? No - it was a weak way of handling things; but at least they did something against the arms dealers. Not many others did.

[quote]You contend that there have been prosecutions against illegal arms dealings in Germany. I applaud them. However, you can’t seriously contend that the German prosecution has been either broad enough or effective enough to curtail the enormous degree of illegal arms dealings with Hussein (up to 2001, I might add).

Why is that?

I hope you can see that some of us believe that your government’s prosecutions are probably more symbolic than in earnest.[/quote]

First of all, in Germany there is a separation of powers. It is not the gouvernment which prosecutes. And - yes they did it. After having searched on the web a bit, I could not find a single prosecution in the US. So even if they did it symbolically (and I doubt that) they did something.

[quote]Here is an interesting article that highlights my argument:

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=90-82.

I’ll PM it to you to make sure it goes through.

In summary, I’ve found a great deal of information highlighting the German Government/Industry’s role in illegal arms transfers.

I’ve shown you that the Finance minister representative reported that the German Parliment knew all along about the weapons’ transfers. I’ve shown the total inefficiency of German prosecutions (through incompetence/or lack of will/or both) with regard to Hussein.[/quote]

If I remember your sources correctly, the Parliament grilled the Kohl gouvernment if it had known about it - not necessarily a sign that it had known. As for the prosecutions - at least they got some people into jail; and a lack of will is again not proven.

Here, I absolutely agree. It would have even better not to deal with him at all - for all our countries. But we all did.

Yes. That’s politics, I must say, but yes, sure they have dirty hands. But were they against this war because they had dirty hands, or because they did not want to continue the vicious circle of arms dealing and subsequent war? I think the latter is true. I can’t prove it. But there is still no evidence that it was otherwise.

You see “Germany” is learning this lesson. And that is why taking part in any military “solution” is so hard to push through German parliament. It is pretty deeply ingrained into German culture that war does not solve conflicts, but spurs new ones. We don’t take pride into our military very much. Be careful not to mix an imperialistic tradition that thankfully ended in 1945 with today’s Germany. That “Germany” has committed quite a few sins since then is obvious - but fostering war isn’t one of them. And that is the main reason, why she would not take part in the Iraq war.

Makkun

55

How interesting. The Iraqi’s seem to be rejecting Bin Laden, Sdaam and the insurgents. Imagine a democracy right in the center of the Middle East.

Iraqi’s fear Bin Laden’s Next move.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – Osama bin Laden has vowed to turn Iraq into the front line of his war against the United States, but Iraqi insurgents seem worried that he’s out to hijack their rebellion.

At times, the Iraqis and foreign Muslim militants seem to be competing.

Media reports and Web statements have speculated that a Saudi carried out the December 21 suicide bombing of a U.S. mess tent in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul that killed 22 people.

But Ansar al-Sunnah, the homegrown group that took responsibility for that deadliest of attacks on a U.S. target in Iraq, named the bomber as Abu Omar of Mosul, a nom de guerre that pointedly claims him as an Iraqi.

Earlier this month, a posting on Ansar al-Sunnah’s Web site told foreign militants to stop coming. The group, which defines itself as both nationalist and Islamic, said it needed money, not more recruits.

“We have concrete information that a sharp division is now broiling between” Iraqis waging a nationalist war and foreign Arabs spurred by militant Islam, said Mouwafak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government’s national security adviser. “They are more divided than ever.”

Al-Rubaie said one reason was the perception among Iraqis that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant whom bin Laden endorsed as his deputy in Iraq, was of little help during the American onslaught on the Iraqi insurgent hotbed of Falluja in November.

“Al-Zarqawi and his group fled Falluja and let the Iraqis face the attack alone,” al-Rubaie said in a telephone interview.

Some Iraqis may have drawn parallels between the debacle in Falluja and what happened to Afghanistan after it became bin Laden’s headquarters.

Since Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown by the American-led war in April 2003, insurgents including foreign fighters have waged a guerrilla war aimed at forcing out U.S. troops. The Iraqi interim government says it has detained more than 300 foreign fighters, among them men from almost every Arab country.

Some streamed into Iraq shortly before the war, invited by a desperate Saddam. Muslim militants are believed to be behind some of the deadliest attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces.

In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire.

In the same message, though, he may have angered insurgents loyal to Saddam by calling the toppled president “a butcher” and “a tyrant.” And naming a Jordanian as his deputy in Iraq would not have sat well even among Iraqis who share bin Laden’s militant vision of Islam.

Bin Laden’s message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic. But Iraqi groups including Sunni clergy that had earlier called for boycotting the January 30 vote now say they want to participate if a timetable is set for U.S. withdrawal.

“Bin Laden’s problem is that he is far away from reality, he is a daydreamer. He is even blind,” said Shadi Abdel Aziz, a Cairo University professor and author of “Continuity and Change in bin Laden’s Thought.”

Abdel Aziz said bin Laden’s key mistake is to ignore that “people always put their national and personal interests first.”

“In this part of the world people have several identities, Islam is only one of them and it does not necessarily come first,” he said.

Bin Laden’s problem in Iraq seems similar to what he faced in Afghanistan after the defeat of Soviet troops. While bin Laden wanted to follow up with a worldwide war on those he saw as Islam’s enemies, some of the warlords who became Afghanistan’s new rulers wanted the Arab fighters out.

Al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, was an Islamic activist in his youth, but believes bin Laden-style Islam will fail to take hold in Iraq.

“They failed in Egypt, which is a more homogenous society, and they failed in Afghanistan when they had a state,” he said. “How can they win here with all this religious and sectarian diversity?”

56

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Let me ask my liberal friends (aldurr, tme, moriarty, elk) a direct question.
[/quote]

Wow, I leave for a while and I get lumped in and labelled as a liberal. For your information, I am a registered Republican.

Providing alternatives after 2 years of war doesn’t do much good except provide you with ammunition to feed your desire to argue with anyone who doesn’t buy into the current administration’s rhetoric. You proved that from your responses to others on this topic. I sure you will view this as a cop-out, but I don’t really care what you or anyone else thinks about that.

The problem that I saw was not with going after Saddam. He was an asshole that should have been removed during Bush Sr.‘s term. Which many believe costed him his re-election. It was the fact that the current administration grasped at the nearest straw (incomplete information) and used that as the excuse to go into Iraq. In other words’ “Piss poor planning produces poor results.”

Wrong! Only a little more than half the voting public (51%) voted for Bush. And out of that half, there were many other reasons as to why they voted for him. The war was not the only reason.

Just because someone doesn’t provide you with any alternatives that you feel are valid, does not mean that they have to support the war effort. I support getting our troops home, safe and sound and healing of all the people affected by these events. Your name-calling just shows that not only are you not concerned with anyone else’s opinion that doesn’t agree with you, but also that you are in need of healing as well.

57

is anyone posting here in the military by chance? i am curious to know how my brothers-in-arms feel about what’s going on in the armpit of the world.

58

Al

Asking for alternatives is a very rational question to ask. The majority of the ABB crowd doesn’t actually have a clue what to do. They just feel whatever action the administration takes is wrong. Think Luddites.

Whining is not debate. If you don’t have an answer, perhaps those that whine ad nauseum should allow those that do to step forward. I speak in particular of the Democrats in congress. You can’t be against everything and for nothing.

59

does anyone here honestly know what the men and women of the armed services go through over there? good arguments from both sides but still leaves one to wonder why the military is in harms way for what is, quite honestly, a war of money. corporations stand to make a lot of money if iraq is privatized and that quite frankly is the underlying reason why we are there in iraq. we put all our efforts into finding these WMD and North Korea and Iran both have them, both countries posing more of a threat than iraq did. We couldn’t find Bin Laden, so we go after Saddam. does anyone honestly believe we “can’t” find Bin Laden if we didn’t want to? i am not a conspiracy theorist, not in the least, these are just issues that quite frankly give me the red ass. The state of the military overseas is just pathetic, and Mr. Rumsfeld’s only words? “you go with the army you have, not the army you want”. want kind of message does that send to men and women who are dying daily for a cause they don’t even believe is real? i don’t believe it is about the oil because it would have been too easy to secure the oil fields and be done with the issue, but the men and women there would like to believe that they are dying for a better reason. i don’t mean to piss anyone off, just wanted to put that out and hear someone’s feedback. as far as a plausible alternative? as decadent as the U.N. is, we should have gotten their support or just be done with them all together.with the action the U.S has taken, we can’t possibly expect anyone to take the U.N seriously nor expect them to do anything after we basically told them, “screw you, we got this”, we went over with shoddy intelligence that put lives in danger for a cause that iraqi people don’t believe in. if the people of iraq wanted democracy, they would have had it already. they only had a 2000 year head start over the rest of the world.

60

Hedo wrote:

Al

"Asking for alternatives is a very rational question to ask. The majority of the ABB crowd doesn’t actually have a clue what to do. They just feel whatever action the administration takes is wrong. Think Luddites.

Whining is not debate. If you don’t have an answer, perhaps those that whine ad nauseum should allow those that do to step forward. I speak in particular of the Democrats in congress. You can’t be against everything and for nothing."

I wanted to make sure everyone read this.

Strong work, Hedo.

JeffR