You Brits are gonna love the New Freedom and Safety

[Stopper]

DangerBoy, what you must realise about these drones, is that they see it from all sides of their own arguement...

But, but...They're talking about Iraq and the War On Terror, neither of which I've ever got the impression you've supported.

Read back over what DangerBoy has been saying. Doesn't DangerBoy sound like one of those people who has been nurtured by them, the better to spread their propaganda, so they can control us all the more easily??

[Dancing Mustard]

Read back over what DangerBoy has been saying. Doesn't DangerBoy sound like one of those people who has been nurtured by them, the better to spread their propaganda, so they can control us all the more easily??

Charles? What is this blue shit up in my face? Since when did you become Xtratabasco's multi? How did he get into your mind?

[Coleman]

Since when did you become Xtratabasco's multi?

You're just bound and determined to out an Xtratabasco multi today aren't you?

[Stopper]

Read back over what DangerBoy has been saying. Doesn't DangerBoy sound like one of those people who has been nurtured by them, the better to spread their propaganda, so they can control us all the more easily??

Charles? What is this blue shit up in my face? Since when did you become Xtratabasco's multi? How did he get into your mind?

If you're looking for xtratabasco's multis, look no further than one of your pleasant chaps:

Hehehe, no-one listens to wise old norse...

Whether or not one supports the war, or whether or not one hopes for a swift victory and return of troops (whatever 'victory' means), you will never stop the ideaology behind the machination behind the war.

Most of you fail to even comprehend the reasons why we are at war.

It is not about terrorism, it is not about democracy and freedom, it isn't even about oil.

It is about control.

And i'm watching the grand majority of you puppets with the hand firmly up your asses.

[Norse]

Stopper, you're such a damp lettuce leaf.

"norse iz teh xtra Multi!1"

Grow up.

[joecoolfrog]

The reason that I find your views so alarming is that you are attempting to boil a complicated situation down to a simple pro/anti USA equation when it is far more complicated than that. To view everybody who questions the war as a Liberal appeaser is simplistic and dumb, if ever Bush thought that Iraq was going to help in his 'war on terror' then he knows better now as does everybody else who has viewed the last 5 years objectively.
,

This is what I've been trying to say for six posts... Dangerboy, you've yet to address this point at all.

A basic point that joecoolfrog and others make is that I'm boiling this down to simplistic terms. Isn't it just as simplistic to charge me with only looking at the world through the eyes of Fox News? I still haven't heard anyone admit that it was wrong to charge me with that even though I never quoted them once when presenting my views. I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with the war is an appeaser. What I'm basically saying is that people who don't like President Bush will constantly criticize and don't care about ANY good news coming out of there. There's lots of good things happening there that you guys are refusing to acknowledge.
People against the war also try to say that they are the ones who are critical thinkers, but if you disagree then you are simplistic.

Now I gave you a link to the study I'm reading. It gives BOTH the good and the bad. Since I'm taking the time to read everything there I would say I'm trying to get as much information as possible, not a simplistic defense of the war. How many liberals can make the same claim? Liberals do the same thing that you are all accusing me of doing - blind obedience to talking points which have been refuted.

So there are different titles given to people who have the SAME OBJECTIVE - to kill, murder, torture, behead. If they want peace, then talk it over or elect representatives, stop killing.

I'll ask again - has anybody viewed the ENTIRE video link that I posted showing Saddam Hussein's victims. It was hardly a stable environment to be living in.

I'm in between classes now. I haven't finished your 3rd article yet cause I went to bed after reading the 1st two.

You are simply waffling and avoiding answering direct questions. This is not about George Bush, it is not about being patriotic, it is not about supporting Allied troops in Iraq it is about terrorism and the so called war on terror. Now stop running away and answer these questions please:

1) If your country was invaded ( for whatever reason ) and you fought against the invaders does that make you a terrorist ?

2) If everybody fighting against the USA is a terrorist then how has the occupation of Iraq helped in the war on terror, there are more terrorists than ever according to your logic

3) If Iraq has been a major success in the ' war on terror ' then why has Bush and his administration chosen to play down this aspect of the situation, surely they would be shouting from the rooftops about how they had eroded the terrorist threat as a result of invading Iraq.

Now please just give me some straight answers and not any more condescending shit about not looking at both sides of the argument. I was actually pro war initially but my opinion has altered precisely because I have viewed the situation from all angles, not simply stubbornly stuck to my original view and tried to put a veneer on an obvious cock up.
The British government never tried to pretend that invading Iraq was about regime change or to fight terrorism, it simply pushed the line that Iraq had an armoury of WMD's that threatened our and others security.
When it became apparent that not only did these weapons not exist but that Blair had both lied and been complicit in feeding us misinformation then an awful lot of people felt betrayed and support for the war evaporated pretty quickly.

[Neutrino]

Stopper, you're such a damp lettuce leaf.

"norse iz teh xtra Multi!1"

Grow up.

Damp lettuce leaf?

The actual insult is lacking, but I suppose I can give you few points for imagination...

[joecoolfrog]

DangerBoy, what you must realise about these drones, is that they see it from all sides of their own arguement...

Just remember

Bigot - "A person who wins an argument with a liberal”

Oh what bigots we are.

Norse I generally find it amusing when you troll your (supposedly )
Fascist views but a lot of innocent people have died because of the lies peddled to support the invasion of Iraq. A lot of British soldiers have died or been maimed in both Iraq and Afghanistan because of Blairs vanity and stupidity.....choose your subjects with a bit more care please mate.

[biznor]

XtraTabasco got this information from a laughably unreliable source: infowars.net. This website preaches fallacies that respectable individuals wouldn't believe for a second. Including the infamous "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theory.

The British certainly have fewer rights than US citizens, but they gave those rights by choice in return for significantly better security. The events portrayed in ExtraTabasco's article are almost certainly exaggerated or altogether false.

[DangerBoy]

You are simply waffling and avoiding answering direct questions. This is not about George Bush, it is not about being patriotic, it is not about supporting Allied troops in Iraq it is about terrorism and the so called war on terror. Now stop running away and answer these questions please:

You first. I directly challenged you guys to provide us with proof that there were no terrorists in Iraq before 2003. You still haven't done that. You're accusing me of the very thing you're guilty of. If I don't agree with you then I don't have an open mind. If I don't agree with gottonkaed I am not thinking critically.

You asked me to provide polls taken in Iraq. I ALREADY POSTED IT when I replied to Guiscard's post. Stop saying I'm avoiding your questions.

Bush never said there was a HUGE POWERBASE in Iraq. Those are words that YOU PERSONALLY USED during this discussion. I can't defend it because he never said it.

I showed the link from the Seattle newspaper & USA TODAY about the total dead in Iraq & Afghanistan. Not Fox News, which still nobody will admit. I'm still waiting for the retraction for that one.

Since you think I'm avoiding things how about you give me a straight answer. The same one I've been asking now for about 5 times!!! Have you watched the video link that I provided? It lists SPECIFIC things that Saddam did to his own people. It lists SPECIFIC things that have gotten better since the fight against his regime toppled him.

1) If your country was invaded ( for whatever reason ) and you fought against the invaders does that make you a terrorist ?

I would fight to the best of my ability of course. You can't compare that to the situation in Iraq because the US military went to take out the Saddam Hussein regime, not Iraq. We are trying to help those people rebuild.

2) If everybody fighting against the USA is a terrorist then how has the occupation of Iraq helped in the war on terror, there are more terrorists than ever according to your logic

I didn't say everyone fighting against the USA is a terrorist. I said: So there are different titles given to people who have the SAME OBJECTIVE - to kill, murder, torture, behead. You're putting words in my mouth the same as you did to Bush. That's another reason it's so frustrating to debate with people such as yourself. This is just another attempt to label supporters of the Iraq effort as simpletons while you and your side are the critical thinkers. Your side looks at all views while supporters just boil it all down to simple black & white. I'm reading the Brookings institute report right now and reading Petraeus' report because I want to be more informed. What are you reading?

3) If Iraq has been a major success in the ' war on terror ' then why has Bush and his administration chosen to play down this aspect of the situation, surely they would be shouting from the rooftops about how they had eroded the terrorist threat as a result of invading Iraq.

They do, but the media filters out the good news and only presents the bad things that happen. That's what I've been saying. Apparently it works because when I say good things are happening there you & your side get upset. "HOW CAN DANGERBOY BELIEVE THAT????" The reason I believe it is because I'm reading 2 full reports on it and not just repeating liberal talking points.

Now please just give me some straight answers and not any more condescending shit about not looking at both sides of the argument.

Lead by example.

1. Have you watched the entire video link that I posted?
2. Can you provide me with specific facts that prove that there were no terrorists in Iraq before 2003?
3. How can someone who murders thousands of his own people be considered stable?

Guiscard, I will read the 3rd article and respond. So far, I think the 1st one is the most informative.

[silvanricky]

You're putting words in my mouth the same as you did to Bush. That's another reason it's so frustrating to debate with people such as yourself.

The same thing happened to me when I said there were more than 19,000 militants killed.

Why did you not mention the over 19,000 bad guys that have also been killed? Is it gung-ho to kill terrorists?

then comic boy said

I sincerely doubt that there were 19,000 armed terrorists worldwide before the Invasion of Iraq, you have created a monster with more arms than you can ever cut off.

They changed my statement around as well. Is it any wonder they do it with Bushs' words? And yes you quoted the story I read from USA Today correctly dangerboy. I didn't know about Afghanistan but that's also good to hear.

[joecoolfrog]

Right First of all A straight answer to your questions - I only wish you could be a accomodating.

1) Yes I watched the video right the way through and it taught me little I did not know. It confirms that Saddam was an evil vicious dictator but does NOT add any weight whatsoever to your assertion that he fostered or sponsored terrorism.

2) I daresay there were a few terrorists in Iraq under Saddam ( there are probably a few terrorists in most countries ) but im certain that there are many more there now than there were before. You are simply turning the question around,you are asserting that there was a significant terrorist threat from Iraq and it is up to you to provide the links to prove it - you cant because they dont exist.

3) I think this has been explained to you 3 times already but I will be patient as you seem to have trouble grasping the point. Iraq was stable in terms of International terrorism because under Saddam it did NOT encourage Islamist Fundamentalism either at home or elswhere,remember he fought a long and bloody war against the Mullahs of Iran. He tolerated no threats and no opposition and probably killed more Muslims than the rest of the world put together. It is not a question of picking and choosing what Media to believe,nobody and I mean nobody would claim that Iraq sponsored terrorism in any major way whatsoever and be able to back it up.


You earlier asserted that you made no distinction between insurgents and terrorists but now you have backtracked but implied that they are all as bad as one another...Well let me explain the difference. Insurgents will not export their fight to other countries,they are fighting the USA simply because the USA is occupying their country,in short if the soldiers were not there than they would not be getting attacked. They are a direct result of the occupation of Iraq, they are no threat to USA homeland security and killing them will not further the drive against international terrorism. In fact , as I have explained previously, it simply makes things worse because the propoganda machine turns them in Islamic martyrs which in turn helps breed a new generation of real terrorists.

In Summary

Was Saddam a bloodthirsty despot - Yes but regime change is illegal unless one can prove it is a danger to the International community. This proof was put forward in the guise of the WMD's but proved to be inaccurate and certainly in Britain a lot of the evidence presented was fabricated.

Was Iraq sponsoring International terrorism to such a degree that an occupation was neccesary - Absolutely not !

Are there other countries where there is absolutely no question of their complicity in widespread International terrorism - Certainly Iran, Syria and Libya were miles ahead of Iraq in that respect so they would have seemed better targets if the aim was to broaden the war on terror.

And lastly has the Invasion of Iraq made the World a safer place, has it helped to eradicate terrorism worldwide and have attacks worldwide decreased - Sadly No No and No.

[joecoolfrog]

You're putting words in my mouth the same as you did to Bush. That's another reason it's so frustrating to debate with people such as yourself.

The same thing happened to me when I said there were more than 19,000 militants killed.

Why did you not mention the over 19,000 bad guys that have also been killed? Is it gung-ho to kill terrorists?

then comic boy said

I sincerely doubt that there were 19,000 armed terrorists worldwide before the Invasion of Iraq, you have created a monster with more arms than you can ever cut off.

They changed my statement around as well. Is it any wonder they do it with Bushs' words? And yes you quoted the story I read from USA Today correctly dangerboy. I didn't know about Afghanistan but that's also good to hear.

So by bad guys you didnt mean terrorists,what did you mean then ?
Are people fighting against the occupation of their country all bad guys,were the tens of thousands of innocent people who have died all bad guys !
The problem is that there are an awful lot of people who see the soldiers as the bad guys,the governments of The USA and Britain as the bad guys and they are fighting back. All I know is that more and more people are going to die and nobody seems quite sure what we were doing there in the first place.

[DangerBoy]

Right First of all A straight answer to your questions - I only wish you could be a accomodating.

Whatever, you haven't been exactly aceepting of my points either. Get off your moral high horse.

1) Yes I watched the video right the way through and it taught me little I did not know. It confirms that Saddam was an evil vicious dictator but does NOT add any weight whatsoever to your assertion that he fostered or sponsored terrorism.

The purpose of the video was to refute that Saddam Hussein's regime was stable. There were specific things mentioned at the end of the video which showed life is better since he was deposed.

8 million Iraqis voted in free elections, the most progressive consitution in the middle east which includes women's rights, 170 independent newspapers - probably more by 2007, 82% said they thought their lives would be better a year later as of 2005 - that has changed since then but only because of Sunnis & Baathists in the survey, 80 indpendent TV stations compared to 1 state-run station under Hussein (at least it was stable), 168,000 internet subscribers compared to 4,500 before the war (at least their internet connection was stable when they weren't being murdered), 1.9 million automobiles compared to 1 million before, 27,000 new businesses opened and a free stock exchange, 3,065 schools rehabilitated, 8.7 math & science book distributed, 22 universities & 43 technical schools opened, 32,000 secondary teachers trained, 4.3 million kids enrolled in elementary school compared to 3.6 million under the stable Hussein govt, 5 million children between 6-12 yrs old received vaccinations, 3 million under age 5 received vaccinations, 700,000 pregnant women have received vaccinations, 140 health care clinics built, 156 health care facilities have been built, 1 new hospital built & 20 rehabilitated, the death rate is 1/2 of what it was under the stable Hussein govt, 76 water treatment projects have been started & 84 in progress, 30 sewer projects completed & 6 in progress, 33 fire stations built & 55 in progress, as of July 2005 oil production hit highest productivity ever even more than the stable Hussein govt, production of electricity exceeds post war levels now.

How's that for instability? Of course you already knew that because you learned little more than you already knew before watching it.

2) I daresay there were a few terrorists in Iraq under Saddam ( there are probably a few terrorists in most countries ) but im certain that there are many more there now than there were before.

Yes you could daresay that but it's different than what you were claiming before

Even the Bush administration has conceded that their was no huge Islamic terrorist powerbase in Iraq prior to the invasion, Saddam crushed all potential trouble makers and they were no exception.

Now who's backtracking on their position?

3) I think this has been explained to you 3 times already but I will be patient as you seem to have trouble grasping the point. Iraq was stable in terms of International terrorism because under Saddam it did NOT encourage Islamist Fundamentalism either at home or elswhere

yeah right. This has been refuted so many times here I'll just use other people's links.

Captured terrorist admits Saddam had training camps
Bob Kerrey, a democrat even admitted Bin Laden & Hussein collaborated
Al Queda brags about training in northern Iraq
Defectors admit Hussein had terrorist training camp
Former Iraqi official admits Hussein had training camp
Another story about Iraqi terrorist training camps

Would you say Vladimir Putin is a simple-minded right winger?

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," - Putin

You earlier asserted that you made no distinction between insurgents and terrorists but now you have backtracked but implied that they are all as bad as one another

I'm backtracking!!!! I agreed to read Guiscard's articles for crying out loud. My point is I don't care about their title. They all want to kill us.

Let me give you an example from my life. I live in Nevada now but I went to high school near Indio, California. I am white. There were only a couple of us white kids and a few black kids. I would say 95% of the school was mexican. They had so many gangs there and their title was according to what street they lived on. The biggest two were 52nd Street & 50th Street. There was also 38th, 16th, and others. They all had one thing in common - beat up white & black students, sometimes they had to do it for an initiation. So I got jumped cause I'm white. I punched the mexican kid in the face and broke his nose. I didn't care if he was from 38th, 52nd, 16th, 50th or whatever. I didn't care what his motivation was & I didn't ask him to identify his membership. This happened about 3 or 4 times. Each time I defended myself the mexican kids got angrier and talked even more trash. You know what, I didn't care because I got to go home in one piece. They left me alone after awhile and went after smaller guys than me. So yeah I DON'T CARE WHAT THEIR TITLE IS. Kill them before they kill us.

Was Saddam a bloodthirsty despot - Yes but regime change is illegal unless one can prove it is a danger to the International community. This proof was put forward in the guise of the WMD's but proved to be inaccurate and certainly in Britain a lot of the evidence presented was fabricated.

also been refuted many times here on CC. I'll just use what others have posted.

Paul Martin of Canada
The UN

So much more than that but everyone gets the point. There weren't stockpiles of weapons, but there were weapons. Putin admitted to it too.

Are there other countries where there is absolutely no question of their complicity in widespread International terrorism - Certainly Iran, Syria and Libya were miles ahead of Iraq in that respect so they would have seemed better targets if the aim was to broaden the war on terror.

Ok, I can't argue with this. Shoot!

And lastly has the Invasion of Iraq made the World a safer place, has it helped to eradicate terrorism worldwide and have attacks worldwide decreased - Sadly No No and No.

We're not saying that we can eradicate terrorism worldwide. We're killing as many terrorists/insurgents/militants/bad guys as possible so they can never murder or make another attack on us. They're busy dying over there instead of being able to attack us over here. There certainly has been a decline in the number of suicide bombings since we increased our troop strength there. The US hasn't been hit since 9/11 so we're doing something right. I say the Iraq effort is one of the main reasons.

Finally

You are simply turning the question around,you are asserting that there was a significant terrorist threat from Iraq and it is up to you to provide the links to prove it - you cant because they dont exist.

Yeah I knew it. You couldn't show me proof of your position so you went after me to deflect attention away from your own inability to back up your beliefs. Whatever, I backed up mine but you still haven't backed up yours.

[joecoolfrog]

We can argue back and forth forever but lets be clear on this:

Iraq will be a thorn in the side of the USA for years to come,it will eventually pull out having achieved nothing and in all probability civil war will follow, its Vietnam all over again. I wonder if all the scarred and maimed vets of this Middle East fiasco will be treated in the same shameful way that those who came back in pieces from South East Asia were.
One day your kids or grandchildren are going to ask you why on earth you supported this mess and I doubt that they will be brushed off with a heap of patriotic nonsense. There is nothing noble about what is happening in Iraq, those who started it have blood on their hands as do those who blindly seek to justify the death of so many for no good reason whatsoever.

[got tonkaed]

in terms of stability...i feel like at this point it makes more sense to go to a direct source. Heres a link to the August National Intelligence Estimate on iraq from August.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070823_release.pdf
(note - this was not hard to find....google, stablity statistics on iraq, foreign policy site had a direct link)

Notables: There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation
since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007

However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties amongcivilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively. There have been modest improvements in economic output, budget execution, and government finances but fundamental structural problems continue to prevent sustained progress in economic growth and living conditions.

Population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues, imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states and increasing the danger of destabilizing influences spreading across Iraq’s borders over the next six to 12 months.

There is more in the report. The reason that people argue that things were more stable under saddam is that these fundamental problems which are now occuring in Iraq were not occuring before. Likewise, the area was not faced with issues that have difficult if any resolution at all. Furthermore, the gains that are occuring seemingly are only relegated to smaller segements of the population, which does not create the type of stability that we were attempting to create. Seemingly what we have gotten in stabilty post saddam is not positive in terms of diminishing returns, what we will have put into iraq for what we have gotten out, will seemingly not be worth it.

A note on deaths. Frequently you have discussed we have killed large numbers of people who are against us. I will not argue this is a bad thing, but you have yet to really bring up or deal with the fact that we are killing large (and by some reports vastly larger) quanitities of people who are not out to get us and are much more innocent. Seemingly you are willing to place a value on life of iraqi bad guys (to use a simplistic term) of in some cases over 10 to 1 (disputed reports to a degree) over the lives of iraqi not bad guys. If you accept this point then i dont wish to carry it further, as this would be a gap we would not be able to bridge.

A note on your sources. In many cases you have information that does present a case and must be considered. However in many of those cases the information is clearly being advanced as part of a disputed political agenda. I am not saying that this is not done by people who argue against the positions. But the fact that there is evidence and statements from individuals on both sides of the issue, some from within our own government that dispute the claims of those sources, is worth mentioning. Having thumbed through all of them, i will add this.

To whatever degree Saddam may have been harboring or planning or doing whatever he was doing with terrorists, it has not as of yet justified what has come as a result. I realize you will vehmently disagree with this. However, every country on earth, has terrorists inside of them. We have sponsored terrorist acts through the CIA in the past, and will continue to do so in the future in all likelyhood. Part of the nature of global politics, espeically in the 21st century will deal with the threat of terrorism. Is this something to actively combat, of course it is, and there are counterterrorism forces in our government doing just that. However, the issue we have created in Iraq has exacerbated the problem, and seemingly in all likelyhood created a greater possiblity of terrorist activity out of iraq than there was during saddams reign. This claim is not unsubstantiated. The fact that elements will be entering iraq in force over the next year, which are more likely to be directly connected to terrorist groups (instead of their being a possible working connection) poses a much greater threat to national security. If there really is anything at all in Iraq (and it seems less likely now than before, since we still havent found it) then people who were not under the thumb of saddam seem much more likely to use it against us.

Id suggest reading the report, there is some good to be found in it. But in terms of stablity i would not argue that it is that good, or that it in any way validates what we have done.

[Neutrino]

The purpose of the video was to refute that Saddam Hussein's regime was stable. There were specific things mentioned at the end of the video which showed life is better since he was deposed.

Of course his regime was stable. It survived for almost a quarter of a century, including a long war with Iran and the first US lead invasion.

Hell, there are countries that can barely go two years without a coup. I think Saddam's record of almost 25 years compares well.

According to the great source of all information that is Wikipedia,

Saddam repressed movements he deemed threatening to the stability of Iraq, particularly Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government or gain independence, respectively.

He may not have been nice, but he certainly kept his country stable.

8 million Iraqis voted in free elections, the most progressive consitution in the middle east which includes women's rights, 170 independent newspapers - probably more by 2007, 82% said they thought their lives would be better a year later as of 2005 - that has changed since then but only because of Sunnis & Baathists in the survey, 80 indpendent TV stations compared to 1 state-run station under Hussein (at least it was stable), 168,000 internet subscribers compared to 4,500 before the war (at least their internet connection was stable when they weren't being murdered), 1.9 million automobiles compared to 1 million before, 27,000 new businesses opened and a free stock exchange, 3,065 schools rehabilitated, 8.7 math & science book distributed, 22 universities & 43 technical schools opened, 32,000 secondary teachers trained, 4.3 million kids enrolled in elementary school compared to 3.6 million under the stable Hussein govt, 5 million children between 6-12 yrs old received vaccinations, 3 million under age 5 received vaccinations, 700,000 pregnant women have received vaccinations, 140 health care clinics built, 156 health care facilities have been built, 1 new hospital built & 20 rehabilitated, the death rate is 1/2 of what it was under the stable Hussein govt, 76 water treatment projects have been started & 84 in progress, 30 sewer projects completed & 6 in progress, 33 fire stations built & 55 in progress, as of July 2005 oil production hit highest productivity ever even more than the stable Hussein govt, production of electricity exceeds post war levels now.

How's that for instability? Of course you already knew that because you learned little more than you already knew before watching it.

Ignoring the fact that most people in major cities live in constant fear of terrorist attacks (every few days there is a report of another bus exploding) your stastics are a good sign.

In all actuality though, having an appreciable risk of being blown up on your way to work is not a sign of a thriving and stable country.


Pre

2) I daresay there were a few terrorists in Iraq under Saddam ( there are probably a few terrorists in most countries ) but im certain that there are many more there now than there were before.

Yes you could daresay that but it's different than what you were claiming before

yeah right. This has been refuted so many times here I'll just use other people's links.

Captured terrorist admits Saddam had training camps
Bob Kerrey, a democrat even admitted Bin Laden & Hussein collaborated
Al Queda brags about training in northern Iraq
Defectors admit Hussein had terrorist training camp
Former Iraqi official admits Hussein had training camp
Another story about Iraqi terrorist training camps

Would you say Vladimir Putin is a simple-minded right winger?

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," - Putin

I would like the point out that all these training camps were established post- or late pre- Gulf War. He knew the US wasn't happy about his actions toward Israel and the Kurds and so he was fully expecting another invasion. Why not make an alliance with an old enemy (who he spent a lot of time and money keeping down) to face a new one? (Note: here I was talking about his local, homegrown terrorists, not international groups)

Plus, Al-Qaeda (who actually admitted to performing the attacks) is based in Afghanistan (and not Iraq) and according to Wikipedia, Osama (the leader of Al-Qeada, just in case you didn't know ) actually offered his services to Saudi Arabia to repel a possible Iraqi attack!

Most certainly they were allies

I'm backtracking!!!! I agreed to read Guiscard's articles for crying out loud. My point is I don't care about their title. They all want to kill us.

Let me give you an example from my life. I live in Nevada now but I went to high school near Indio, California. I am white. There were only a couple of us white kids and a few black kids. I would say 95% of the school was mexican. They had so many gangs there and their title was according to what street they lived on. The biggest two were 52nd Street & 50th Street. There was also 38th, 16th, and others. They all had one thing in common - beat up white & black students, sometimes they had to do it for an initiation. So I got jumped cause I'm white. I punched the mexican kid in the face and broke his nose. I didn't care if he was from 38th, 52nd, 16th, 50th or whatever. I didn't care what his motivation was & I didn't ask him to identify his membership. This happened about 3 or 4 times. Each time I defended myself the mexican kids got angrier and talked even more trash. You know what, I didn't care because I got to go home in one piece. They left me alone after awhile and went after smaller guys than me. So yeah I DON'T CARE WHAT THEIR TITLE IS. Kill them before they kill us.

The differences between Insurgents and Terrorists are as extreme as those between someone who wants to fight you because you came into their house and started trashing things and someone who wants to fight you to merely prove their dominance. Insurgents merely want you out and that's all they are fighting for. They will not come to America and blow themselves up to ill some civilians. Their attacks are purely focused on military targets inside their own country. Unfortunately, the US occupation forces are doing a great job of turning insurgents into terrorists.

I'll ask you again: if the US were somehow invaded, how would you react? Judging from what you've posted, you're fiercely nationalistic and so would probably begin resisting the occupation forces; insurge, if you will. You don't want them dead (or maybe you do, but you probably aren't going to go to their country and do it). All you want is for them to get out of your country and let you recreate your own culture. You wouldn't be a terrorist; you'd be an insurgent. They are entirely seperate things.

We're not saying that we can eradicate terrorism worldwide.

No you can't and your massively disproportional strikes are only infalming the problem.

We're killing as many terrorists/insurgents/militants/bad guys as possible so they can never murder or make another attack on us.

And killing many, many civilians at the same time.

US lives > everyone elses lives?
Most certainly

There certainly has been a decline in the number of suicide bombings since we increased our troop strength there. The US hasn't been hit since 9/11 so we're doing something right. I say the Iraq effort is one of the main reasons.

Again: No, it's the US' vastly increaced security that is stopping the attacks. Again: there have been attempts, but these have failed. Again: terrorists are poliferating everywhere else in the world due to the massively disproportional attacks the US makes.

Killing 19 000 of their citizens (most of whom were merely trying to get the US to leave their country) for 2-3000 of yours dosen't work. An "eye for a city" type relationship will never quell the problem, as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout history.

[joecoolfrog]

I was just speaking to a friend of mine who has recently finished a 9 month tour of Baghdad,he was originaly an officer in the marines but had been on the reserve list for a number of years and was quite shocked when they called him up. Although being a military man he is fiercely patriotic and leans to the republican side he is also well travelled,spends half the year in Thailand where he has business interests, and pretty worldly wise.
He actually got wounded a few months ago and though not that serious
at his age it will be enough to prevent a return to active service, he is quite happy about that. We chatted about the situation in Iraq but only in general terms, I have no idea what his role was though I think to do with inteligence gathering and he never commented on policy or the wisdom of being there.
What he did say was that he found it infinitely tedious because he spent the majority of his time stuck in the green zone which is the heavily militarised centre of Baghdad. On the occasions he ventured outside this zone it was in heavily armoured convoys that stuck to the highways, more often that not he would be subject to some kind of attack though mostly just sniping and small arms fire. His contact with the local people or the countryside was minimal the whole time he was there and he basically lived and worked with what he described as a siege mentality.
I did ask him how long he thought the US military would be in Iraq and he simply replied a very long time and he added that for most of the soldiers he knew survival was the number one priority - who can blame them !
Now I dont know if Jon's view is typical,its fair to point out that he thought his active service days were over and he wasnt thrilled being there, but it does beg a few questions. Politically there is no way the armed forces can be seen to take heavy casualties so its understandable that they are loathe to expose themselves to more danger than is neccesary. On the other hand by locking themselves away in armed compounds it is difficult to see how they can be particularly pro-active or to intergrate in any meaningfull way with the local population.
In a perfect World there would be no more deaths on either side and the troops would pull out tommorow but that of course wont happen and I fear there will bloodshed for many years to come - I think its a tragedy !

[silvanricky]

8 million Iraqis voted in free elections, the most progressive consitution in the middle east which includes women's rights, 170 independent newspapers - probably more by 2007, 82% said they thought their lives would be better a year later as of 2005 - that has changed since then but only because of Sunnis & Baathists in the survey, 80 indpendent TV stations compared to 1 state-run station under Hussein (at least it was stable), 168,000 internet subscribers compared to 4,500 before the war (at least their internet connection was stable when they weren't being murdered), 1.9 million automobiles compared to 1 million before, 27,000 new businesses opened and a free stock exchange, 3,065 schools rehabilitated, 8.7 math & science book distributed, 22 universities & 43 technical schools opened, 32,000 secondary teachers trained, 4.3 million kids enrolled in elementary school compared to 3.6 million under the stable Hussein govt, 5 million children between 6-12 yrs old received vaccinations, 3 million under age 5 received vaccinations, 700,000 pregnant women have received vaccinations, 140 health care clinics built, 156 health care facilities have been built, 1 new hospital built & 20 rehabilitated, the death rate is 1/2 of what it was under the stable Hussein govt, 76 water treatment projects have been started & 84 in progress, 30 sewer projects completed & 6 in progress, 33 fire stations built & 55 in progress, as of July 2005 oil production hit highest productivity ever even more than the stable Hussein govt, production of electricity exceeds post war levels now.

Captured terrorist admits Saddam had training camps
Bob Kerrey, a democrat even admitted Bin Laden & Hussein collaborated
Al Queda brags about training in northern Iraq
Defectors admit Hussein had terrorist training camp
Former Iraqi official admits Hussein had training camp
Another story about Iraqi terrorist training camps

Would you say Vladimir Putin is a simple-minded right winger?

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," - Putin


Paul Martin of Canada
The UN

So much more than that but everyone gets the point. There weren't stockpiles of weapons, but there were weapons. Putin admitted to it too.

Wow good points dude. I enjoyed that.

[joecoolfrog]

8 million Iraqis voted in free elections, the most progressive consitution in the middle east which includes women's rights, 170 independent newspapers - probably more by 2007, 82% said they thought their lives would be better a year later as of 2005 - that has changed since then but only because of Sunnis & Baathists in the survey, 80 indpendent TV stations compared to 1 state-run station under Hussein (at least it was stable), 168,000 internet subscribers compared to 4,500 before the war (at least their internet connection was stable when they weren't being murdered), 1.9 million automobiles compared to 1 million before, 27,000 new businesses opened and a free stock exchange, 3,065 schools rehabilitated, 8.7 math & science book distributed, 22 universities & 43 technical schools opened, 32,000 secondary teachers trained, 4.3 million kids enrolled in elementary school compared to 3.6 million under the stable Hussein govt, 5 million children between 6-12 yrs old received vaccinations, 3 million under age 5 received vaccinations, 700,000 pregnant women have received vaccinations, 140 health care clinics built, 156 health care facilities have been built, 1 new hospital built & 20 rehabilitated, the death rate is 1/2 of what it was under the stable Hussein govt, 76 water treatment projects have been started & 84 in progress, 30 sewer projects completed & 6 in progress, 33 fire stations built & 55 in progress, as of July 2005 oil production hit highest productivity ever even more than the stable Hussein govt, production of electricity exceeds post war levels now.

Captured terrorist admits Saddam had training camps
Bob Kerrey, a democrat even admitted Bin Laden & Hussein collaborated
Al Queda brags about training in northern Iraq
Defectors admit Hussein had terrorist training camp
Former Iraqi official admits Hussein had training camp
Another story about Iraqi terrorist training camps

Would you say Vladimir Putin is a simple-minded right winger?

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," - Putin


Paul Martin of Canada
The UN

So much more than that but everyone gets the point. There weren't stockpiles of weapons, but there were weapons. Putin admitted to it too.

Wow good points dude. I enjoyed that.

Yep its a great place - planned your vacation yet

[CoffeeCream]

Seriously dangerboy nice post there with facts to back it all up. They should have a website to give us some positive news sometime to counter all the negative criticism.

[joecoolfrog]

Seriously dangerboy nice post there with facts to back it all up. They should have a website to give us some positive news sometime to counter all the negative criticism.

Seriously why are you afraid of criticism ?
What is more important, that the USA does the right thing or is just portrayed as doing the right thing. If things start to go great in Iraq then I will be the first to celebrate, I couldnt care less if it makes Bush look good or makes me completely wrong in what I currently think.
The only thing that matters is that we improve Global security and eradicate terrorism and whatever gloss one puts on it that has not happened. Surely you can see it is farcical to obliterate almost the entire infrastructure of a country and then celebrate the fact that you have rebuilt a fraction of what was destroyed

[Nobunaga]

... Fools believe what they see on the news. There is so much going on in Iraq (and elsewhere) that we won't know about until we're old men watching shows on the History Channel.

... Major networks all have agendas, if even if not political (but most seem to be) bad news sells commercials.

... (not implying anyone specifically is a fool, just a comment).

[joecoolfrog]

... Fools believe what they see on the news. There is so much going on in Iraq (and elsewhere) that we won't know about until we're old men watching shows on the History Channel.

... Major networks all have agendas, if even if not political (but most seem to be) bad news sells commercials.

... (not implying anyone specifically is a fool, just a comment).

That is spot on !
Really all we can do is keep an open mind and not be blinded by prejudice or patriotism.

[CoffeeCream]

... Fools believe what they see on the news. There is so much going on in Iraq (and elsewhere) that we won't know about until we're old men watching shows on the History Channel.

... Major networks all have agendas, if even if not political (but most seem to be) bad news sells commercials.

... (not implying anyone specifically is a fool, just a comment).

That is spot on !
Really all we can do is keep an open mind and not be blinded by prejudice or patriotism.

Yeah, but one person views another person's patriotism as being blinded while another person views their patriotism as their duty. It's impossible to get rid of our biases because we all have things we grew up with that form our opinions.

I'm feeling that from reading dangerboy's posts that some of his opinions about insurgents or terrorists are because of his background. I think that's part of the reason he doesn't care about titles. From where he comes from if you didn't fight to defend yourself you got beat up on a daily basis. Most of the people I meet who don't support the war are people who hide behind books and are afraid to defend themselves. I'm not talking about anyone here, but just people I've met in real life. I support our effort because I think things will get even worse if we don't succeed.