I just wonder what you North Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

Do you think it's right? (why/why not?)

This war is expensive for US. How much are you willing to sacrifice from a domestic perspective (money and casualties) to win.

Other strong opinions...?

I am just curious.......

Personally, I don't think it's America's job to be the world police. If we are going to take on that role, why not go to Africa and clean all that crap up. There is a holocaust going on where hundreds of thousands of people are being exterminated and we're not doing much about it. Why aren't we doing much about it? Well, the Islamic leaders and politicians in Sudan have names and locations to several terrorists in the Middle East that we're trying to find, so basically we're turning a blind eye to what's happening in exchange for information.

I'm all for helping people and other countries but at some point we need to finish helping our own country. New Orleans and surrounding area is still in shambles. We have military veterans that aren't being taken care of. Our elderly are getting screwed over by the health care companies. All and all, everything boils down to the dollar. War makes money... atleast it makes money for people with bloody hands.

Nobody likes the war over there. Hell, nobody liked any of the wars we were involved in. Fact is, this is just like high school. Remember the bullies? Anyone that doesn't either was one themself or was just oblivious to what was going on. Point is, someone has to stand up to them. Any other country want to step up to the plate?

*silence*

Thought so.



-Pain

The Cole, American Embassies, Twin Towers 9-11....Never Forget.....Pezking has....So sad.

There are basically two groups:

The intelligent, logical thinkers realize that it it necessary to get the job done today because tomorrow it will be much more difficult. (Are you listening Iran?). They have read history and are very familiar with Neville Chamberlain. The big beef that these people have with the war is that we won't take off the gloves and just win the damn thing.

The others hate George Bush and/or America and are willing, no rooting, for us to lose in order to hang the failure around the neck of the Republican party. Politics are more important that the good of the country. They actually believe that the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam was a military defeat for the US because the Drive-By-Media told them so. Thier glory days were protesting that war and now they are trying to re-live them.

Success in Iraq is bad for the left, so they are actively pursuing failure.

Wow Kleerance tough subject to bring up - kudos to you. My opinion on this matter has changed only slightly over the years. Yes, Saddam was an a-hole, yes he invaded a neighboring country but that being said he provided stability to a region of the world that so desperately needs it. All George has done is create rampant anti-American feelings in moderate Islamic communities and "justified" radical Islamic actions on the "street". I have not forgotten 9/11, the USS Cole, the African Embassies, London Tube Bombings , the list goes on. However i also realize that through his/our actions we have created an environment that has made it possible for many many more attacks to occur. They don't hate us because of our freedoms, the hate us because we have established bases in their most holy of places (Saudi Arabia), we have sponsored their most hated rivals (Israel, the Saudi Royal Family, the Shah of Iran). When everyone hates you, don't you think it wise to look into your own actions once in a while?

I am not a bleeding heart liberal, i am just a middle of the road American who realizes that we have created a future for our kids that is much more unsafe than it was for me growing up (mind you i grew up in the middle of the cold war near a top 10 top ICBM target ). Actually I have developed a HATRED for all things Islam, peace loving religion my ass! Obviously, like many Americans i see both sides of the arguement.

One question Pain, who's the bully in this case?

My two cents.

LOL!! Unbelievable! Saddam provided peace and stability and George Bush is the Bully!?!?!?!?
Too funny!

Maybe those that were raped and murdered in Kuwait might have something to say about Saddam's 'middle east peace plan'. How about the 300,000 bodies in northern Iraq during Saddam's 'ethnic cleansing stability plan'.

Isreal really enjoyed all those "death to Israel" speeches also, they obviously never took that to heart. All political gamesmenship, right? Even when the 'scud missles of peace and prosperity' were launched at them, the Israel knew they were just filled with 'good fortune' cookies.

One question Pain, who's the bully in this case?

My two cents. [/quote]



Why, the terrorists are the bullies sir! If anyone thinks for one minute that they will leave the rest of the world (yes, the whole world) alone if we pull out...then get ready for reality.



They do not hate us for being over there. They hate us because we exist, period. Our freedom is what they can't tolerate and want to control. They are, after all, the ultimate control freaks.



-Pain

i have always believed iraq is a key component of the middle east, seperating iran from others is good imho . i believe saddam was funneling billions of dollars to terrorist groups all over the world (besides the drug trade .the day they sent the wmd guys in there to find the "nukes" i remember thinking to myself "wow,you know,if i was saddam i would go out in the middle of no where and bury all weopons,chemical,biological etc.. and shut down the factories. when they attack me it shore would make them look stupid" and then it happend. coming from a guy who is NOT a bush advocate or anyone in his cabinet for that matter, i believe that there is a reason were there and i dont want to know all the details. for the record- we wouldnt be in this f***ing situation if our government did something about these KNOWN terrorists prior to bush ever being in office-THIS IS A TIRED TIRED SUBJECT!



the pc ,bully screamers wont be happy till a nuke or dirty bomb goes off in your city -then youll be screaming bloody murder ,wont you . its a double edged sword. they said they were going to hit them in their wallets-THEY DID,end of story. we are suffering CASULTIES IN A CITY BATTLE at the moment. how many CITY battles through out history have been succesful? if there is one let me know ? they are trying to get the government on their feet to police their own country and it would shore be a shame if we listend to all the cry babies and up and pulled our guys out to only have the whole region be taken over by more terrorist nations ,that would shorely prove that all the amricans that have died -DIED FOR NO REASON , let alone how many amarican lives will be lost in the evac as what happend in vietnam.





also concerning the wmd teams - my opinion only- in ww2 hitler allowed red cross to openly tour his jewish prison camps because they had reports of jew slaughters and yet they found nothing till the war was almost over. same thing ! if the government has time they can hide anything.



these are only opinions from a non republican.

LOL!! Unbelievable! Saddam provided peace and stability and George Bush is the Bully!?!?!?!?

I'm literally loughing out loud!!!!!! Too funny!!!!! I can't take this...my gut hurts!

Peace may have been the wrong word selection, but stability yes. Answer this, Iraq before the "liberation", 600,000 civilians killed by Saddam? No wait, that is after the "liberation". Safe haven for Al-qaida before "liberation"? Nope another result of the invasion. Saddam hated Osama, and his ilk. Saddam was not a not a secular man, he may have been an asshole but he kept a country thrown together by the Treaty of Versailles in balance, therefor the region. To use cold war speak, domino-effect. We have made it possible for the terrorists to spread throughout the region. Countries are turning a blind eye to their presence within their borders.

Bully 1.a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Only the smaller weaker people are fighting back now and they don't fight fair.

At no point did i say that i think we deserved being attacked, only that we are not blameless and it's crazy/dangerous not to figure out why we are hated by so many. Sorry to hear that your laughing out loud Snot and yes Bush a bully, i'd say about 65% of the population agree.

Told you Kleer, brave subject to bring up.

That's a low blow man. I never once said anything about us being in Iraq or Afghanistan, whether I was for or against it. I have friends over there now and I lost friends in both the towers and the Pentagon. All I was saying was that it sucks that we seem to be one of the only countries involved in all this stuff and it's a shame that there are other attrocities happening that we can't take care of. Meanwhile, our own country is sliding down the shit hole because we're so focused on what's happening everywhere else. Fix the immigration issue, help the homeless, help the veterans, teach our children.

Still pissed off that you even went there Snot.

I meant no personal offense. This is a debate. The subject is the War in Iraq. I happen to believe that the war on terror has everything to do with Iraq, Iran, Afgh, Pakistan, ect..



Therefore when some one says we should stay home and fix a city that was destroyed by a hurricane when it was purposely built below sea level, screams of someone who doesn't get the fact that people are trying to kill and destroy us. Hence my comments about 9/11, ect.



Your point about Sudan is actually fantastic. Should the US police the world? I used to think not, but when Islamic fundementalists move into a country and begin wholesale slaughter of the "christian" population, I think the US should step up, in some way. The UN, as it proved with Saddam, is completely inept to deal with these issues.

And you are absolutely right! Where are the rest of countries in world in stepping up and helping? GB, Canada, Australia, and Poland are the only other countries that want to help.



Question Pez: Since your against any US "policing action". Would it be consistant to say that you were against declaring war on Germany in 1941, and Germany in 1917, Against the Korean War, Against the Vietnam war and Against the First Gulf War?

Again, I'm not "against" helping people out. I was just pointing out, why the hell are we always the ones going in to help out countries? Where is everyone else? I know we don't do it alone, so I'm not trying to piss off anyone outside of the US. Just seems that we foot large amounts of the bill or we pay with blood. I know that freedom isn't free. I understand that we have to stay in Iraq to prevent Iran from becoming the all-powerful tyrant of the Middle East.

I assuming that you think that I'm some tree hugging, left-wing, democrat or something because I pointed out the Darfur thing? I am not.

So WWII, Germany and Japan declared war against us. The US sat back while Europe begged for us to get involved. We started getting putting production lines into effect incase we did go, but from reading FDR and Eisenhower's biographies, we didn't intend on going to war. We only went after Pearl Harbor.

Korea and Vietnam, yeah... I wasn't around yet so my opinion's are very hindsighted. I don't think we should've gone to war over communism. But yes, it help people from being opressed by another group... but somehow the French got us into another fine mess and left once we took the ball. We pretty much rode both of those wars completely solo.

Gulf War, Saddam was messed up. Yes, I agreed w/that war competely because he invaded another country. We had international support on that one as well.

So what today's war comes down to is... should Saddam have been taken out of power? Yes, but it should've happened years ago during the first Gulf war. Are there WMDs over there? I doubt it, although that whole term is subjective so anyone debating that could easily prove that mustard gas is a WMD. Could Saddam have taken out the US w/one of his missles? No way. Did he provide any threat against us? No. But yeah, he messed up and had to be punished. I'm not against what we're doing over there and I completely support all the troops over there.

My original point was that there are so many bad things happening all over the world and other countries are still looking at us to take care of the problem. They hate us, yet they want us to handle the world's problem and pay for them. That's what pisses me off. All and all, I'm totally for having troops over there because they keep the terrorist localized and hey!, the US hasn't had an attack on it's soil since we went over there. It does upset me that my fellow countrymen and women are dying so that Iraqi's can be free, mostly because they don't appreciate it. I don't think they really want freedom. They smile and wave to the troops, then burn our flags and set up roadside bombs behind their backs.

Part of the problem is that the DBM (Drive By Media) is telling you the story they want you to hear. I think that as a whole, the Iraqis are very grateful for all we've done. If they could be sure that the left wouldn't force us to surrender and pull out prematurely they would be able to show even more support. As it sits right now, they need to keep thier heads down because if they support us openly and we bail on them, there will be hell to pay when the islamofascists take over.



As far as us doing everything solo, that's because we can get it done. Very few other countries have the balls to do the right thing.



As far as everyone hating us. BFD. Most of this is not actually hate, but envy. If we were everything those bastards say we are we would own the middle east and do with it as we please. Same with most of Europe. When Germany invaded France, thier intent was to make that territory thiers. We didn't take possession of Germany when we defeated them, we rebuilt thier country and got them headed into basically the right direction.



It's easy for all the wanna-be's of the world to sit back in the safety net we provide, using the technology we invented, and badmouth us. Who cares what they think? Right and wrong don't change based on world opinion. I'm sure that many of them are fine countries, but when they get into a jam I don't think France is coming to the rescue. How many countries sent teams to New Orleans? How much money did Belgium send? They need us and can't survive without us. That makes them feel (rightfully) inadequate and pissed off.



Thanks God Canada is finally turning around. I thought we might lose them to the other side for a while.

I find this an interesting addition to the discussion. Interview with our current VP after Gulf War I.


www.schreerdesign.com/dsdtransfer/cheney.mp3

Great post Shaz! I mostly agree with Cheney's thughts. It's clear that we did not have much support in removing Saddam at that time. Still don't from much of that part of the world. However, after 9/11, USS Cole and Embassy bombings the sentiment changed. The terrorist network, strength, money and support were under valued.

I strongly disagree with Pez that Saddam was "no" threat to the US. I think there is reasonable evidence to show he was actively supporting terrorist groups that targeted the US and Israel. 1 nuclear device set off in NY and....well enough said. We can take no chances with sworn dictator enemies.

I know this is a bit long...but it is an in-depth report by an independent studdy group on Iraq. Well worth the read.



August 10, 2007The Major Diplomatic & Strategic Evolution in IraqU.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker met Aug. 6 with Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi and Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. Separately, a committee of Iranian, Iraqi and U.S. officials held its first meeting on Iraqi security, following up on an agreement reached at a July ambassadorial-level meeting.

The U.S. team was headed by Marcie Ries, counselor for political and military affairs at the embassy in Baghdad. Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who handles Iraq for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, led the Iranian team. A U.S. Embassy spokesman described the talks as "frank and serious," saying they "focused, as agreed, on security problems in Iraq." Generally, "frank and serious" means nasty, though they probably did get down to the heart of the matter. The participants agreed to hold a second meeting, which means this one didn't blow up.

Longtime Stratfor readers will recall that we have been tracing these Iranian-American talks from the back-channel negotiations to the high-level publicly announced talks, and now to this working group on security. A multilateral regional meeting on Iraq's future was held March 10 in Baghdad, followed by a regional meeting May 4 in Egypt. Then there were ambassadorial-level meetings in Baghdad on May 28 and July 24. Now, not quite two weeks later, the three sides have met again.

That the discussions were frank and serious shouldn't surprise anyone. That they continue in spite of obvious deep tensions between the parties is, in our view, extremely significant. The prior ambassadorial talk lasted about seven hours. The Aug. 6 working group session lasted about four hours. These are not simply courtesy calls. The parties are spending a great deal of time talking about something.

This is not some sort of public relations stunt either. First, neither Washington nor Tehran would bother to help the other's public image. Second, neither side's public image is much helped by these talks anyway. This is the "Great Satan" talking to one-half of what is left of the "Axis of Evil." If ever there were two countries that have reason not to let the world know they are meeting, it is these two. Yet, they are meeting, and they have made the fact public.

The U.S. media have not ignored these meetings, but they have not treated them as what they actually are-an extraordinary diplomatic and strategic evolution in Iraq. Part of the reason is that the media take their cues from the administration about diplomatic processes. If the administration makes a big deal out of the visit of the Icelandic fisheries minister to Washington, the media will treat it as such. If the administration treats multilevel meetings between Iran and the United States on the future of Iraq in a low-key way, then low-key it is. The same is true for the Iranians, whose media are more directly managed. Iran does not want to make a big deal out of these meetings, and therefore they are not portrayed as significant.

It is understandable that neither Washington nor Tehran would want to draw undue attention to the talks. The people of each country view the other with intense hostility. We are reminded of the political problems faced by Chinese Premier Chou En-lai and U.S. President Richard Nixon when their diplomatic opening became public. The announcement of Nixon's visit to China was psychologically stunning in the United States; it was less so in China only because the Chinese controlled the emphasis placed on the announcement. Both sides had to explain to their publics why they were talking to the mad dogs.

In the end, contrary to conventional wisdom, perception is not reality. The fact that the Americans and the Iranians are downplaying the talks, and that newspapers are not printing banner headlines about them, does not mean the meetings are not vitally important. It simply means that the conventional wisdom, guided by the lack of official exuberance, doesn't know what to make of these talks.

There are three major powers with intense interest in the future of Iraq: the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The United States, having toppled Saddam Hussein, has completely mismanaged the war. Nevertheless, a unilateral withdrawal would create an unacceptable situation in which Iran, possibly competing with Turkey in the North, would become the dominant military power in the region and would be in a position to impose itself at least on southern Iraq-and potentially all of it. Certainly there would be resistance, but Iran has a large military (even if it is poorly equipped), giving it a decided advantage in controlling a country such as Iraq.

In addition, Iran is not nearly as casualty-averse as the United States. Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that cost it about a million casualties. The longtime Iranian fear has been that the United States will somehow create a pro-American regime in Baghdad, rearm the Iraqis and thus pose for Iran round two of what was its national nightmare. It is no accident that the day before these meetings, U.S. sources speculated about the possible return of the Iraqi air force to the Iraqis. Washington was playing on Tehran's worst nightmare.

Saudi Arabia's worst nightmare would be watching Iran become the dominant power in Iraq or southern Iraq. It cannot defend itself against Iran, nor does it want to be defended by U.S. troops on Saudi soil. The Saudis want Iraq as a buffer zone between Iran and their oil fields. They opposed the original invasion, fearing just this outcome, but now that the invasion has taken place, they don't want Iran as the ultimate victor. The Saudis, therefore, are playing a complex game, both supporting Sunni co-religionists and criticizing the American presence as an occupation-yet urgently wanting U.S. troops to remain.

The United States wants to withdraw, though it doesn't see a way out because an outright unilateral withdrawal would set the stage for Iranian domination. At the same time, the United States must have an endgame-something the next U.S. president will have to deal with.

The Iranians no longer believe the United States is capable of creating a stable, anti-Iranian, pro-American government in Baghdad. Instead, they are terrified the United States will spoil their plans to consolidate influence within Iraq. So, while they are doing everything they can to destabilize the regime, they are negotiating with Washington. The report that three-quarters of U.S. casualties in recent weeks were caused by "rogue" Shiite militia sounds plausible. The United States has reached a level of understanding with some nonjihadist Sunni insurgent groups, many of them Baathist. The Iranians do not want to see this spread-at least not unless the United States first deals with Tehran. The jihadists, calling themselves al Qaeda in Iraq, do not want this either, and so they have carried out a wave of assassinations of those Sunnis who have aligned with the United States, and they have killed four key aides to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a key Shiite figure.

If this sounds complicated, it is. The United States is fighting Sunnis and Shia, making peace with some Sunnis and encouraging some Shia to split off-all the time waging an offensive against most everyone. The Iranians support many, but not all, of the Shiite groups in Iraq. In fact, many of the Iraqi Shia have grown quite wary of the Iranians. And for their part, the Saudis are condemning the Americans while hoping they stay-and supporting Sunnis who might or might not be fighting the Americans.

The situation not only is totally out of hand, but the chance that anyone will come out of it with what they really want is slim. The United States probably will not get a pro-American government and the Iranians probably will not get to impose their will on all or part of Iraq. The Saudis, meanwhile, are feeling themselves being sucked into the Sunni quagmire.

This situation is one of the factors driving the talks.

By no means out of any friendliness, a mutual need is emerging. No one is in control of the situation. No one is likely to get control of the situation in any long-term serious way. It is in the interests of the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia that the Iraq situation stabilize, simply because they cannot predict the outcome-and the worst-case scenario for each is too frightening to contemplate.

None of the three powers can bring the situation under control. Even by working together, the three will be unable to completely stabilize Iraq and end the violence. But by working together they can increase security to the point that none of their nightmare scenarios comes true. In return, the United States will have to do without a pro-American government in Baghdad and the Iranians will have to forgo having an Iraqi satellite.

Hence, we see a four-hour meeting of Iranian and U.S. security experts on stabilizing the situation in Iraq. Given the little good will between the two countries, defining roles and missions in a stabilization program will require frank and serious talks indeed. Ultimately, however, there is sufficient convergence of interests that holding these talks makes sense.

The missions are clear. The Iranian task will be to suppress the Shiite militias that are unwilling to abide by an agreement-or any that oppose Iranian domination. Their intelligence in this area is superb and their intelligence and special operations teams have little compunction as to how they act. The Saudi mission will be to underwrite the cost of Sunni acceptance of a political compromise, as well as a Sunni war against the jihadists. Saudi intelligence in this area is pretty good and, while the Saudis do have compunctions, they will gladly give the intelligence to the Americans to work out the problem. The U.S. role will be to impose a government in Baghdad that meets Iran's basic requirements, and to use its forces to grind down the major insurgent and militia groups. This will be a cooperative effort-meaning whacking Saudi and Iranian friends will be off the table.

No one power can resolve the security crisis in Iraq-as four years of U.S. efforts there clearly demonstrate. But if the United States and Iran, plus Saudi Arabia, work together-with no one providing cover for or supplies to targeted groups-the situation can be brought under what passes for reasonable control in Iraq. More important for the three powers, the United States could draw down its troops to minimal levels much more quickly than is currently being discussed, the Iranians would have a neutral, nonaggressive Iraq on their western border and the Saudis would have a buffer zone from the Iranians. The buffer zone is the key, because what happens in the buffer zone stays in the buffer zone.

The talks in Baghdad are about determining whether there is a way for the United States and Iran to achieve their new mutual goal. The question is whether their fear of the worst-case scenario outweighs their distrust of each other. Then there is the matter of agreeing on the details-determining the nature of the government in Baghdad, which groups to protect and which to target, how to deal with intelligence sharing and so on.

These talks can fail in any number of ways. More and more, however, the United States and Iran are unable to tolerate their failure. The tremendous complexity of the situation has precluded either side from achieving a successful outcome. They now have to craft the minimal level of failure they can mutually accept.

These talks not only are enormously important but they also are, in some ways, more important than the daily reports on combat and terrorism. If this war ends, it will end because of negotiations like these.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Okay, yeah... there are a lot of "what if" scenarios with Saddam. But you could say that about Iran, China, North Korea... hell, even Venezuela since Chavez has pretty much declared war on the US in so many words. When you get into smuggling a dirty nuke into NYC or something, it could be anyone. Right now, Russia bothers me and they don't seem to be an ally anymore, how's that for a "what if" scenario? Russia could blow up a nuke and they would be one of the last people we'd be thinking did it.... we'd all be thinking it was some extremist muslim group.

I just read a book call Making A Killing by Captain James Ashcroft about the whole Iraq situation and he made some interesting observations. First off, back in the day, all oil was traded with US dollars; however, some countries have switched over to the Euro, inlcuding yours truly, Iraq. But guess what, after we invaded Iraq, they mysteriously started trading oil with the US dollar again. Coincidence? I think not. Oil being traded in US dollars helps keep our economy rolling and preventing a collapse even as our textile mills and furniture factories close by the day. If we're looking for WMDs, why not go to North Korea? If we're stopping genocide, why not go to Rwanada or Darfur? As for why we are in this awful situation, no one will really knows except Dubya and the good Lord himself.

God Bless America and our troops.

You do know that we get very little of our oil from Iraq right? Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela are the top four in that order for crude oil.

LOL.



No War = No Freedom. The islomofascists have been attacking EVERYONE for centuries. George Bush finally had enough when they struck the Twin Towers. Something like 93% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims, but Rommel (sitting in Norway of all places) blames George Bush. When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

so excuse me for only reading the first couple posts but I had to say this...In my history class we were watching a video about this area and there was a part specifically about suicide bombers. They actually showed a "sign-up" where thousands of people came to apply for a sucide bombing role? (I found that kinda funny) But then they were talking with one of the head Immam's (shit, spell check) or basically one of the head priest's in more simple terms, But they brought up the whole "are these people actually going to with Allah and having all the joys and so on". But he said no, he said that these people are going to suffer in the deepest parts of hell. I found that quite suprising.




what was that about the media showing us what they want us to see...

through out history this region was always controlled by whoever controlled the middle east as a whole. hitler even had ties with iraq in ww2 and had nothing to do with oil.



if they followed the money and all ties lead to iraq ,then they would partly be responsible for 9/11.

Where do we start with a post like this;
You write as if the Western/euro powers have been pacifist goody two-shoes influences in the past millenium.... read some real history books lately?
Who doesn't blame George Bush- only 30% of Americans support George Bush's personal/vendtta/crusade war- read your current affairs lately? Your smug snipe at Rommel's place of birth only cheapens your uninformed character further - If you knew what his noble profession is and things that he's done in real life then you'd feel like an ant in his presence.
By the way smart-guy your BUSH buddy, the CIA, the UN and just about everyone with half a brain will gladly tell you the reason to go to war was not about revenge/retaliation strike for the twin towers... it was about WMD WMD WMD......and getting Saddam out of power to be replaced by what the neo-cons delusionally thought would be an easy transfer of power to a puppet/quasi democratic Iraqi government.
Who precisely is Norway going to get in trouble with? They don't have a maverick 'leader' spending ludicrous amounts of money on an unwinnable war [as long as troop levels are insufficient] and sending of its youngsters and family parents on 3 or 4 tours against a collection of factions of enemies that will always have limitless numbers of cannon fodder.
Sure- go call your neo-con congressman while you can-he'll likely be gone in a couple of years when the majority of Americans make the right call to end the quagmire of the current state of affairs.
Seeing as you're so concerned about stopping conflicts, why don't you sign-up for service if you're of age.
Too many conservative pro-Bush chicken-hawks just love the idea of fighting wars they get to sit back, watch and play no direct role in. Oblivious to the real hurt and suffering going on for a cause that's going nowhere fast.
There are those who are saying we can't leave. One day Iraq will be on its own and vultures set to tear it apart from inside and outside its borders are waiting in the wings. It's ignorant to think al quaeda would take over Iraq-sure they can be the mindless destructive shit disturbers there but if you think they'd be bold enough to assume they can take control of a nation like they do the rural iraqi villages they control once in a while, I think you're nuts. Lots of Iraqis want payback on any al queda they can get there hands on - You think Iran would sit back and let al quaeda take over- Do you see how Iraqi militias and insurgents torture ach other to death- even al quaeda operatives would piss their pants if they knew they'd get taken prisoner by them.
The way I look at it is, even if Iraqis had their own revolution that toppled Saddam we'd see a huge bloodletting in the population as factions wrestled for control. And you tell me- do you believe the US and its coalition would dare move into such a chaos to patrol and try and seperate the factions. I would hope this current surge works, but my feeling is let the Iraqis meddle out their own affairs... fight the real enemy that Bush's escapade has motivated; keep the troops pulverising pee-on al quaeda operatives along the Syrian border - the source of the suicide bombers - al aquaeda aren't street fighters-they're cowardly silent killers-get them in the open deserts before they mingle into general populations!!!! And don't forget about Afghanistan.

In spite of Bush's desperate propoganda machine to spin the Iraq war as ultimately what will crush al quaeda if victory is even possible there, get real -It's not Iraq where the next world-stage attack will come from or be directed from. Some will venture to say 'but we haven't been attacked since 9-11'. Well be realistic; worldwide devastating al aquaeda attacks have occurred and they are pushing their influence in Arab states, S.E Asia, and N/E Africa and how many homegrown cells are already in many Western nations planning, how many near-complete attack attempts have we foiled in all these places too? Al quaeda is resurging back to full capability; we had them on the ropes with their faces smashed to a pulp before Bush prodded by the neo-con baffoons rediverted his attention into Iraq thinking they were going to 'save the world' with the new brand of enforced democracy strategy.

Finally in retrospect its idiotic that neo-cons continue bashing Clinton for apparently doing little against Bin Laden when in fact he made some efforts at least. What- tell me you Bush fans- what did Bush do before 9-11 when he took over? He dismissed reports 'BinLaden ready to fly planes into buildings' -ie, no increased airport security at that time NOR any efforts to seek out Bin Laden any more than Clinton did- in fact I say he did much less - just like all the repubs were whining about the Monica affair instead of using their supposedly great insight to persuade Clnton to take out Al queada at all costs.

I just wonder ultimately, how many 'terrorist' local drug dealing street-gangs here in N.America could we take out and how many poor rural citizens in southern states we could bring up to a decent lifestyle with the large portion of 1 trillion dollars invested in the Iraq War.

Blah Blah Blah

Rommell may have indeed have a noble pofession but he's the one who made the post with the anti-Bush graphic. No Fascism, Marxism, Communism = No War. IIRC there has never been a case where one democracy has declared war on another.



His post implies that the whole mess was started by Bush. You are making basically the same assertion. Bush should have known about it in the 10 months he was in office but Clinton gets a pass because he only had 8 years. Get real.



I'm well past the age where I can sign up for service, but If the position that you're espousing prevails I will be heavily involved fighting the islomofascists here at home. Right now I'm just happy we get to fight them there.



I have nothing against either of you personally, but I'm really sick of you guys from other countries telling us how to run ours while at the same time being enjoying the fruits of our success and safety we provide.



Another thing. I wouldn't feel like an ant in ANYONE's presence. If I met Rommel I may indeed be duly impressed by him as a man and by his accomplishments. That would in no way diminish my view of myself.

Apparently I am now in the position to answer your questions directly:

Q: I just wonder what you North Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

A: Apparently we are divided. Some from Norway don't like it either.



Q: Do you think it's right? (why/why not?)

A: Again, we're divided, North Americans, Norwegians and all. Each have thier own reasons.



Q: This war is expensive for US. How much are you willing to sacrifice from a domestic perspective (money and casualties) to win.

A: Divided again. For some it not worth it at any cost, for others it is viewed as part of the fight for our ultimate survival.



Q: Other strong opinions...?

A: Nope, none. No one has really indicated they have an opinion one way or the other...



Capt. Andtennille

I for one find it quite pleasant that we, as intelligent adults, can debate without personally attacking each other.

How refreshing it is that we can each have our own views and opinions that are just as respected as the other guy's.



-Pain

ps. Sarcasm? Don't know the meaning of the word.

sorry i just wanted to make this post even longer

but people dont realize that communisim is the best form of government there is...and the human part is what messes it up. But with democracy now, I want a show a hands from people that know we ARE NOT a democracy...we are a republic and democracy is the closest thing to communisim besides communisim itself...i mean we arn't even spreading deomcracy around the world we are just saying it is because it sounds better and people might think back to Rome and how well a rublic worked for them dot dot dot

Absolutely correct. We are a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. The intent of this was to protect the rights of smaller, less populated states and to keep the power in the hands of the states rather than the federal government. Each state gets representation in the House base on it's population and representation in the Senate is equeal for all state (2 senators each). Originally, the Senators were chosen by the state leglislatures rather than by a popular vote. We would probably be well served to go back to that method.

United States vs. GB /Canada- War of 1812




When it came down to it- even after full access granted to UN Inspectors, Bush CHOSE to up the ante by making the final case to go to war coming down to Saddam stepping down from power and leaving Iraq in a set time period- Yes he started that War. The mess came when we found out that after the military did their job smashing their way to Baghdad, Bush's admin in fact had no plan to fill the inevitable political void in Iraq-so yes there is a strong asserttion he started the mess.
Haven't you followed the post 9-11 enquiries that showed Bush had a good idea something was coming but did el Zippo and CHOSE to ignore the threat. Look through these links if you want to be objectively informed;
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html



Well it goes without saying anyone but a traitor wouldn't fight an enemy in their neighbourhood.
So really then you aren't fighting them directly-so that's why you're happy 'we're' fighting them there. I doubt the soldiers are too happy not seeing an end in the near future despite military successes in the field.
-secondly those 'al quaeda crossing the Syrian border are cannon fodder-merely diversionary elements. Al quaeda aren't street fighters-they'd get their arses handed to them. The real 9-11 type killers must be waiting in the wings in their targeted country like sleeper cells. Do you really believe a total victory in Iraq miraculously ceases any terrorist threat thereafter?



Once again- 70% of Americans are against this Bush adventure into Iraq. So you can be sick all you want but remind yourself you are in the minority at home too regarding your opinion. People with the anti- Iraq war sentiment are not generally America haters -so don't confuse yourself- they are against Bush and Cheney's disastrous policies. And get off the high horse about safety 'we provide'.... I'm the first one to blast anyone here who rants anti-america, but realize USA and its chums need each other. If China/Russia or N.Korea are ever in a position to make their move to use force, the USA can only go so far alone militarily against other massive superpowers..


Yes you'd be impressed. The ant thing was to let you know he has a face and doesn't need putting down- He's bashing Bush, not your country.




Just like communism, the Roman system was really only ideal for the priviledged class. Everyone one else were mere minions that had to keep in line or else; 25 year obligatory service in a Roman legion not my idea of working out well either.

I know you will, i dont think we will get in to trouble. LOL

[quote name='Rommel' date='08/15/07 5:33pm' post='157595'] [quote name='Capt. Andtennille' post='157517' date='08/15/07 8:41am'] [quote name='Rommel' post='157513' date='08/15/07 7:22am']

I know you will, i dont think we will get in to trouble. LOL

[/quote]





Ummm. Excuse me. WWII? http://www.nuav.net/weserubung2.html

Quite the contrary, Osama bin Laden is actually a Saudi, not an Iraqi and the funding for 9/11 was Saudi as well...... So, why are we in Iraq? And to blk I think it was or whoever said something about who we bought oil from, I wasn't mentioning the physical oil I was saying that the oil was traded with US dollars since the occupation. And to Rommel, I support Dubya and any other president (as long as they aren't a female and/or of the left wing) because that is probably the toughest job in the world.

Okay I'll lay this down straight, if any of you think

A. Bush is to blame for 9/11
B. The war is to try and keep Bush in office
C. We're assholes who want to bully everyone

If you chose any of those YOUR AN IDIOT.

The reason we're over there is because they're a threat to most countries with their "invisible" tactics of suicide bombing, for 9/11, for the hostages slaughtered for simply doing their jobs, for the london bombings, and for their torturing innocent civilians and killing them.

War is not a pretty place, never will be, especially now more then ever as technoligy increases we can just expect to see more and more war.

I personally think that what the first class countries need to do is band up in peace and instead of researching for war research for the final frontire, SPACE. Instead of the war on terror we need to use U.S funds for space travel. I mean think of it, finding other alien beings would be awesome, but instead we must fight, why?..

Do you know that one Norwegian special soldier was killed in Afghanistan. Do you know there are a family without a father like a lot of US family and Afghanistan family.
Pray to God that there are not are more killed in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. What will happen when the your/our soldier go home? Will there be peace? The only i know is that Saddam and his staff is gone.





I don't like war at all





Do you know your history?

On this we agree. I don't know anyone who likes war, it's just that somethimes the ramifications of not being willing to fight when necessary are much worse than the war itself.



I would hate to kill a burgular in my home, but I would do it in a second to keep them from harming my family. The John Stuart Mill quote in my sig sums up my feelings on this whole matter entirely.

What kind of "man" has nothing they consider worth fighting for?



If the islamofascists had been content to target Europe and the middle east, then the U.S. would probably have not gotten involved. When they came to our shores and attacked us here they got a bit more than they bargained for. Since they are only able to function with state support, George Bush made it very clear that countries harboring terrorists are no different than the terrorists themselves. If Norway (for example) were to decide that it's OK for terrorists to train there and make plans to attack the U.S., I would fully support attacking Norway. We had all the authority we needed to attack Iraq because of the dozens of UN resolutions they were violating from the first gulf war, thier involvement with the sponsorship of terrorism was just the spark.



BTW, after further consideration, I will still support helping Norway out should they ever need it. Sort of like an intervention with a friend whos' on drugs...

I have read a whole bunch on this subject and with an open mind to both sides.

1. I dont think Bush is to blame for 9/11. He may have ignored the data but a determined enemy will find a way. Was Clinton to blame? No more than Bush.

2. I dont think Bush was in bed with the Saudi Royal Family or the Bin Ladens (roger Moore can choke on a ham sandwich for all i care).

3. Saddam was contained. He had no Air Force and any ground forces were bottled up in his sovereign borders. Correct if i'm wrong, but weren't UN inspectors in Iraq for the entire time between Gulf War I and II?

4. Yes, Saddam was an idiot who killed many of his "own" people. Is that worth going to war for? We'll it was after the story changed about the WMD's. Have we attacked Iran, China or Sri Lanka? Countries where human rights are completely ignored. Obviously the answer is no.

5. Is the "liberal/DBM" media only showing us what they want us to see? Maybe, but it sure is hard to ignore the fact that suicide bombings kill hundreds of "freed" Iraqi citizens on a weekly sometimes daily basis.

6. As i posted in the audio clip of VP Cheney, the administration knew it would be a mess to enter Baghdad, but they still did it and surprise surprise - civil war. One of the world's largest standing armies (Iraq) is defeated then we give them nothing to do. Well now they're unemployed, armed and pissed what good could come of that?

Bottom line - the war is a mistake with no end in sight. All it has done is polarized the world - islam versus christianity (crusade in Bush's words). Of course i support the troops, i just don't support the git in charge of them.

Lets keep this discussion free of personal attack, the question was asked by Kleerance and all we are doing is answering it.

Shaz

I would hate to kill a burgular in my home, but I would do it in a second to keep them from harming my family. The John Stuart Mill quote in my sig sums up my feelings on this whole matter entirely.

------------------

The FULL UNEDITED quote is this...

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their own free choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.
John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," pp. 208-09, in John Stuart Mill, Dissertations and Discussions (Boston: William V. Spencer, 1867).

Heavy reading, but it means much more than the "simplified version". Especially of note is the part cut out that states "When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people."

Also of note is the part that states "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself." It could be argued that part of the quote UNDERMINES the justification for war being built upon fear of WMD's, or the "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" agument since, boiled down, that is about people concerned about nothing more than their personal safety, and thus cheerleading others to do the real fighting while they shop at the mall in peace.

Anyway, John's saying that there are wars worth fighting for as long as strong moral reasons exist and are the prime factor, and those people doing the fighting believe in them. Does Iraq qualify? Was the primary justification to allow the Iraqi's to be free? Would the American people sign on for any war based solely on Mill's theories?

I wish I could have found even more about what Mill was talking about before and after this except. He was an interesting thinker and a "classic liberal", which today it a rare thing indeed. I suppose a classic liberal today is referred to as a libertarian.

Anyway, here's another quote...

"All attempts by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects are evil."

Hmmm.

The reason we dont go to war with Iran, China, and Sri Lanka is that we'd be way over our heads, China, and Iran and god only knows Sri Lanka probaly has nukes by now think of what would happen to the US? We'd get nuked so many times we'd be wiped out. The war isnt a mistake otherwise there'd me more terrorists in the US then their already are and more suicide bombings in our land. Thats another reason they're over there to contain as many terrorists and kill them for the dont come over to US and bomb the hell out of us like they've been doing to london.

Gen.Sam you do know US have nukes too right?

Even if someone got off a nuke in the US, the US would just send more nukes there way also, by air land or sea. Too maney ppl with too maney nukes.

I don't see how Bush is getting balmed for 9/11, because im pretty sure he didn't just tell people to fly planes into buildings...there was sadyly nothing he could do about it at the time

Ya bark but using nukes could start a nuke war/ww3, Using nukes comes at a price, you must understand that.

If its anyones fault its the secritary of defenses fault they had lines ringing all over and pleanty of intell to suggest this happening from one of our allied groups in Iraq or afganistan, shortly afterwards they were destroyed sadly. I watched the 9/11 documentary that was 2 hours long, I believe its the truth.

LMAO

yes i know that

Gen Sam

This war has radicalized the average not suicidal muslim to do things they would never have before. Look at the London bombings. Several of them had a wife and kids but they felt the need to defend their religion from their own country (UK). Matter of time before we are hit. Only this time it'll be a few pissed off muslim kidsfrom Chicage, Austin (insert anytown USA) with backpacks full of nails and plastique at your local mall at Christmas time. Until that happens you're right there have been no more additional attacks on US soil. Why would they need to? We're sending our men over to Iraq to get slaughtered. 3,702, that's the number of US casualities in Iraq. 2,974, that's the number of people killed on 9-11. We sent 3,702 of our own people to die in a country who had nothing to do with 9-11, essentially we have killed more of own people than those hijackers did. Plus every little girl or boy, father or aunt we kill in Iraq makes 20 more family members who will NEVER forget who did it. The proof is in the numbers.

Terrorist attacks worldwide since 9-11
2003 172 attacks
2004 655 attacks
2005 10000 attacks

Talk about stirring up a hornets nest. I say death to all crazy islamic radicals but why constantly poke the nest with a stick?

And you also relize that mothers rejoice to hear their sons blew themselves up?

I have a good understanding. What are you implying? That Germany did not invade your country? That Germany did invade, but Norway beat them off by themselves with no help from the US or Britain.



Of course, everyone hates war. That goes without saying. But without "war" you'd be subjects of Nazi Germany today. (See, I can use these litle fella's also. LoL.)







I don't know where you get those numbers Shaz. Maybe every time someone fires a rifle in Iraq?



Anyway everyone, Shazbot's point is this. EVERYONE BOW DOWN TO ISLAM. DO NOT RESIST OR YOU WILL BE EXECUTED. (Chop Chop Chop)..."Anyone else restisting?...No?" "There now. Isn't peace grand".

>>>Maybe subjects of Nazi Germany today.<<<

Dont forget it wasnt just USA and the UK in WWII

Indeed. D-Day was a multinational effort. And while the Allies from many countries were battling heroicly on that front, the Russians were pushing back on the other. In fact, it is the COD franchiase that was one of the first WW2 shooters (perhaps the first?) that allowed people to play from various Allied perspectives.

The reason free nations today dominate the world is because of the efforts of many, not just one or two.