229 years ago, today

[WriterDom]

Ok, so Bush lied about WMDs. But why did Clinton lie about them for 8 years?

 

[Sir_Winston54]

and this is why your country will implode. And the world will rejoice and there will be cookies for all.

Speak to any knowledgeable Canadian economics professor (specifically macro-economics) or economist, and/or any professor in your history department, and ask what would happen to Canada (specifically), and to most of the rest of the world if the U.S. did "implode" (collapse). I think you'll find the economists will agree, nearly unanimously, that the rest of the world would undergo an economic depression that would make that of the 1930s look like a mere "bump" in the charts, with the subsequent collapse of most other governments and societies, and that historians will agree, nearly unanimously, that the most likely outcome would be wars in almost every quarter of the globe.

As much as there is wrong with this country, there is much, much more that is right.

Edited to add: And like it or not, the U.S. economy is the underpinning for much of the rest of the world's economy, including your own... as it is the anchor for much of the world's stability.

Just a side note: Should the collapse you seemingly so fervently wish for happen, ask those same professors which country would be most likely to recover the most, and the most quickly.

 

[WriterDom]

We should annex both Mexico and Canada. Move most of the Mexicans to Canada, and most of the Canadians to Mexico. The Canadians could build up Mexico and seal off the border at Guatemala. Just give them ice rinks and they'll be happy. And the Mexicans could harvest the resources at a fair wage. It would be a win-win for North America.

 

[onceburned]

Ok, so Bush lied about WMDs. But why did Clinton lie about them for 8 years?

The UN weapons inspections told Bush that there were no weapons. Clinton did not have that information. And even then, Clinton did not take us into a major war over the issue.

 

[WriterDom]

The UN weapons inspections told Bush that there were no weapons. Clinton did not have that information. And even then, Clinton did not take us into a major war over the issue.

I guess the 29 Democrat senators who voted to authorize the war didn't get that memo either. Care to share it with the rest of the world, or did you just make that up?

Who needs a minor war anyway. Like the 400 cruise missiles and 600 planes Clinton sent into Iraq in '98. He always did things halfway. Like blowjobs not really being sex according to his bible. But I guess he didn't want to hurt Al Gore's chances at being president. Ha.

 

[jasonlf]

Wow! But he lied his ass off in order to start a war to show how resolute and tough his government was. Remember the Bush Doctrine? We don't hear about that anymore - the war in Iraq, which was supposed to demonstrate it, has discredited it instead.

How anyone can trust someone who has caused the death of thousands of people just to massage his ego is beyond me.

More people than Bush thought there were WMDs, babe.

I look at it this way. Bush is in a position of knowing a HELL of a lot more than I know about WMDs in Iraq. He may have had all his advisors telling him there were WMDs, there have been suspicions that Saddam was purposely feeding bad intellegence, trying to sound like he's got more than he had.

That's a complex situation, but I don't believe Bush deliberatley misled us.

 

[onceburned]

I guess the 29 Democrat senators who voted to authorize the war didn't get that memo either. Care to share it with the rest of the world, or did you just make that up?.

No memo, but if you remember all the way back to 2002, the Bush administration regularly disparaged UN inspections and made comments indicating its belief that WMDs existed - despite the lack of evidence.

You might also remember the occasional news reports of anonymous CIA agents complaining that their data was being distorted and filtered.

I really don't care who voted to authorize the war - it was a war started for wrong reasons. It was a war campaigned for by the Bush administration. And too many politicians were spineless and unwilling to stand up to him - including Kerry.

 

[rosco rathbone]

The NYC fireworks were off the hook yo. My favorite one was a crazy explosion of fizzling golden glitter that took over the whole sky with a noise like God's own deep-fat fryer; then right at the point of maximum dazzlement, about 200 flash salutes went off all at once.

 

[Kajira Callista]

The NYC fireworks were off the hook yo. My favorite one was a crazy explosion of fizzling golden glitter that took over the whole sky with a noise like God's own deep-fat fryer; then right at the point of maximum dazzlement, about 200 flash salutes went off all at once.

*sigh* i miss ny on july 4th

 

[Netzach]

The NYC fireworks were off the hook yo. My favorite one was a crazy explosion of fizzling golden glitter that took over the whole sky with a noise like God's own deep-fat fryer; then right at the point of maximum dazzlement, about 200 flash salutes went off all at once.

I miss that shit.

I slept thru the small display in my 'hood and then could not get back to sleep all freaking night.

 

[Aeroil]

More people than Bush thought there were WMDs, babe.

that is true... because Bush fricken told people that there were WMD's in Iraq!

 

[Aeroil]

Speak to any knowledgeable Canadian economics professor (specifically macro-economics) or economist, and/or any professor in your history department, and ask what would happen to Canada (specifically), and to most of the rest of the world if the U.S. did "implode" (collapse). I think you'll find the economists will agree, nearly unanimously, that the rest of the world would undergo an economic depression that would make that of the 1930s look like a mere "bump" in the charts, with the subsequent collapse of most other governments and societies, and that historians will agree, nearly unanimously, that the most likely outcome would be wars in almost every quarter of the globe.

As much as there is wrong with this country, there is much, much more that is right.

Edited to add: And like it or not, the U.S. economy is the underpinning for much of the rest of the world's economy, including your own... as it is the anchor for much of the world's stability.

Just a side note: Should the collapse you seemingly so fervently wish for happen, ask those same professors which country would be most likely to recover the most, and the most quickly.

Fine, we'll just settle for a bloody coup instead of an implosion, until we can Absorb America and self-stabilize our economies.
MUAHAHA

 

[AngelicAssassin]

sigh ... here's a new flash for everyone in the thread. The US has been in a state of war with Iraq since 1990. Now for my one disparaging comment toward my fellow Americans. A good number of you have the short/long term memory of a lightning bug. Every time your ass lights up, that memory gets flashed like an EPROM. Poof, whatever was there is gone.

George Senior gambled big (and won) placing over half a million US soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines in harm's way, then bringing them all home save a number in the lower triple digit range. Of those losses, more than half of can be attributed to accidents rather enemy fire. The US signed a cease fire agreement with Iraq in 1991 based on the unconditional surrender of Iraqi forces still in Kuwait.

The US maintained two no-fly zones within the airspace owned by the sovereign nation of Iraq at the behest of the UN. One zone covered the northern third of Iraq to protect the Kurdish refugee camps from genocidal purge. Another covered the south to protect Iraqi Sunni nationals. That southern zone also provided Kuwait breathing space to rebuild their defenses. Ask the US pilots that received target acquistion locks from Iraqi radar while running patrols within the no-fly zones if they thought a state of war still existed with Iraq. Ask the Iraqi radar/missile site operators (good luck finding them) if a state of war existed when the US fired HARM munitions to eradicate the offending sites.

Another part of the unconditional surrender and cease fire agreement involved abandonment and destruction of all material to include the manufacturing, delivery systems, and research of WMD. The UN would sponsor unannounced inspections for compliance. Anyone that has the faintest recollection of that fiasco knows how Iraq submited to the inspections. Those that don't, scroll to the bottom and pop through the three links.

What went wrong?

Let's start with George Senior. Rather than use military force (and possibly ruin that 0.001 loss percentage from the first dance in the sandbox) the first time the currently jailed dictator farted upwind in violation of the cease fire agreement, Bush let the UN attempt to diplomatically massage the process. Pardon my bluntness, but the UN could ruin a wet dream.

Shall we move on to Slick Willy? George Senior goes to Kuwait to visit ground troops still in country as part of his farewell tour following the inauguration of Clinton in April of 1993. Suspected Iraqi military operatives botch an assassination attempt. Willy orders the firing of cruise missles at Iraqi Intelligence HQs in retaliation two and a half months later. Other than mild protest by a few members of the UN, no one argued the US had violated the Rule of Law. It probably helped that Slick Willie's timetable for the engagement had missles impacting in the early morning hours (local Baghdad time) killing the building's custodial engineers and not much else.

For the next eight years, Saddam continued playing the shell game with Willy. Why not? Willy was too busy "feeling the pain" of Ethiopians dying of starvation in and around Mogadishu while tons of food rotted in the ships & warehouse ports of the same city. In later years he had the onerous task of attempting to unfuck the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda as well as the former Republic of Yugoslavia. As a side note, six Islamic extremist conspirators unsuccessfully bomb the WTC for the first time on February 26, 1993.

George Junior arrives on station. He pushes the UN on Iraqi weapons inspections issues. The UN continues fucking up a wet dream. 9/11 happens, and it's ugly. George correctly goes after the terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the regime in place that supports them. Dubya still, however, has a long outstanding and legitimate issue with the regime in Iraq.

That said, imagine having to come to the "lightning bug" US constituency to say, "Folks, i realize we're up to our asses right now with the terrorist issue, but we have a long outstanding problem that has festered for the better part of 11 years. My sources have a hunch that WMD and/or the materials to construct them exist in a nation with whom a state of war has existed since 1990. Under the Rule of Law, we, as a nation, have the right to use military force to find out once and for all whether that hunch is correct. i intend to play that hunch and ensure the material never gets in the hands of terrorists. My father fucked up, his replacement fucked up, and i've been slow out of the gate in rectifying the situation. The buck stops here."

i can hear the wheels spinning already, but before they go much further, examine the sticky/tricky part. We may never know whether links exist(ed) between the terrorist groups and Iraq. Before you fire off at the mouth, stop and think. If a dictator routinely incarcerates, tortures, and kills his own citizens based on suspicion alone, what chance does a foreign operative have of success within that country? Human intelligence (HUMINT), spies on the ground, 007, whatever you want to call them, rely on what they see and hear. If they can't get information on their own, they rely on those with a grudge, philosophical disagreement, lust for money, etc. How many of those second sets of eyes do you honestly think existed and had anything worthwhile to tell us? We already know one high level one lied his ass off to curry favor and keep money rolling his way.

Did/does WMD exist in Iraq? i frankly don't give a shit. i do know, however, under the Rule of Law, the US could have "pulled the trigger" anytime it wished based on lack of good faith of the other signatory of that cease fire agreement in 1991. The first time a US plane got painted by Iraqi radar, the US could have turned Iraq into a glass parking lot. Was it worth it? Better question to ask ... would you rather have played the hunch differently hoping (at the minimum) a "dirty bomb" didn't go off in a highly populated area where you live?

Last point, and i'll get off the soapbox. i've never agreed with the concept of nation sustainment/building that came into vogue (again) in the early 1990s. It smacks of a patronizing attitude, and the people you try to help get pissed on, off, and eventually return the favor. We got lucky in getting out of one morass in the former (now splintered) Republic of Yugoslavia by taking down the top dog. We nailed another dog, but i don't see us exiting the current morass anytime soon.

For those that would like an eye-opening read on the "non-existence" of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, click the following links. Enough cross references exist to lend credence to their veracity. Next time, try to be an elephant rather than a lightning bug.

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1990-1996

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1997-2000

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001-2003

 

[graceanne]

sigh ... here's a new flash for everyone in the thread. The US has been in a state of war with Iraq since 1990. Now for my one disparaging comment toward my fellow Americans. A good number of you have the short/long term memory of a lightning bug. Every time your ass lights up, that memory gets flashed like an EPROM. Poof, whatever was there is gone.

*giggles*

George Senior gambled big (and won) placing over half a million US soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines in harm's way, then bringing them all home save a number in the lower triple digit range. Of those losses, more than half of can be attributed to accidents rather enemy fire. The US signed a cease fire agreement with Iraq in 1991 based on the unconditional surrender of Iraqi forces still in Kuwait.

The US maintained two no-fly zones within the airspace owned by the sovereign nation of Iraq at the behest of the UN. One zone covered the northern third of Iraq to protect the Kurdish refugee camps from genocidal purge. Another covered the south to protect Iraqi Sunni nationals. That southern zone also provided Kuwait breathing space to rebuild their defenses. Ask the US pilots that received target acquistion locks from Iraqi radar while running patrols within the no-fly zones if they thought a state of war still existed with Iraq. Ask the Iraqi radar/missile site operators (good luck finding them) if a state of war existed when the US fired HARM munitions to eradicate the offending sites.

Another part of the unconditional surrender and cease fire agreement involved abandonment and destruction of all material to include the manufacturing, delivery systems, and research of WMD. The UN would sponsor unannounced inspections for compliance. Anyone that has the faintest recollection of that fiasco knows how Iraq submited to the inspections. Those that don't, scroll to the bottom and pop through the three links.

What went wrong?

Let's start with George Senior. Rather than use military force (and possibly ruin that 0.001 loss percentage from the first dance in the sandbox) the first time the currently jailed dictator farted upwind in violation of the cease fire agreement, Bush let the UN attempt to diplomatically massage the process. Pardon my bluntness, but the UN could ruin a wet dream.

Shall we move on to Slick Willy? George Senior goes to Kuwait to visit ground troops still in country as part of his farewell tour following the inauguration of Clinton in April of 1993. Suspected Iraqi military operatives botch an assassination attempt. Willy orders the firing of cruise missles at Iraqi Intelligence HQs in retaliation two and a half months later. Other than mild protest by a few members of the UN, no one argued the US had violated the Rule of Law. It probably helped that Slick Willie's timetable for the engagement had missles impacting in the early morning hours (local Baghdad time) killing the building's custodial engineers and not much else.

For the next eight years, Saddam continued playing the shell game with Willy. Why not? Willy was too busy "feeling the pain" of Ethiopians dying of starvation in and around Mogadishu while tons of food rotted in the ships & warehouse ports of the same city. In later years he had the onerous task of attempting to unfuck the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda as well as the former Republic of Yugoslavia. As a side note, six Islamic extremist conspirators unsuccessfully bomb the WTC for the first time on February 26, 1993.

George Junior arrives on station. He pushes the UN on Iraqi weapons inspections issues. The UN continues fucking up a wet dream. 9/11 happens, and it's ugly. George correctly goes after the terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the regime in place that supports them. Dubya still, however, has a long outstanding and legitimate issue with the regime in Iraq.

That said, imagine having to come to the "lightning bug" US constituency to say, "Folks, i realize we're up to our asses right now with the terrorist issue, but we have a long outstanding problem that has festered for the better part of 11 years. My sources have a hunch that WMD and/or the materials to construct them exist in a nation with whom a state of war has existed since 1990. Under the Rule of Law, we, as a nation, have the right to use military force to find out once and for all whether that hunch is correct. i intend to play that hunch and ensure the material never gets in the hands of terrorists. My father fucked up, his replacement fucked up, and i've been slow out of the gate in rectifying the situation. The buck stops here."

i can hear the wheels spinning already, but before they go much further, examine the sticky/tricky part. We may never know whether links exist(ed) between the terrorist groups and Iraq. Before you fire off at the mouth, stop and think. If a dictator routinely incarcerates, tortures, and kills his own citizens based on suspicion alone, what chance does a foreign operative have of success within that country? Human intelligence (HUMINT), spies on the ground, 007, whatever you want to call them, rely on what they see and hear. If they can't get information on their own, they rely on those with a grudge, philosophical disagreement, lust for money, etc. How many of those second sets of eyes do you honestly think existed and had anything worthwhile to tell us? We already know one high level one lied his ass off to curry favor and keep money rolling his way.

Did/does WMD exist in Iraq? i frankly don't give a shit. i do know, however, under the Rule of Law, the US could have "pulled the trigger" anytime it wished based on lack of good faith of the other signatory of that cease fire agreement in 1991. The first time a US plane got painted by Iraqi radar, the US could have turned Iraq into a glass parking lot. Was it worth it? Better question to ask ... would you rather have played the hunch differently hoping (at the minimum) a "dirty bomb" didn't go off in a highly populated area where you live?

Last point, and i'll get off the soapbox. i've never agreed with the concept of nation sustainment/building that came into vogue (again) in the early 1990s. It smacks of a patronizing attitude, and the people you try to help get pissed on, off, and eventually return the favor. We got lucky in getting out of one morass in the former (now splintered) Republic of Yugoslavia by taking down the top dog. We nailed another dog, but i don't see us exiting the current morass anytime soon.

For those that would like an eye-opening read on the "non-existence" of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, click the following links. Enough cross references exist to lend credence to their veracity. Next time, try to be an elephant rather than a lightning bug.

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1990-1996

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1997-2000

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001-2003

Yay! *claps*

 

[h_i_s]

We enjoyed an awesome 'natural' display of colors while waiting to see the fireworks show here in MA.
And then, the pyrotechnic celebration began.

 

[jasonlf]

AA... awesome. Nice synopsis.

You're very well spoken.

 

[Netzach]

Did/does WMD exist in Iraq? i frankly don't give a shit. i do know, however, under the Rule of Law, the US could have "pulled the trigger" anytime it wished based on lack of good faith of the other signatory of that cease fire agreement in 1991. The first time a US plane got painted by Iraqi radar, the US could have turned Iraq into a glass parking lot. Was it worth it? Better question to ask ... would you rather have played the hunch differently hoping (at the minimum) a "dirty bomb" didn't go off in a highly populated area where you live?

Last point, and i'll get off the soapbox. i've never agreed with the concept of nation sustainment/building that came into vogue (again) in the early 1990s. It smacks of a patronizing attitude, and the people you try to help get pissed on, off, and eventually return the favor. We got lucky in getting out of one morass in the former (now splintered) Republic of Yugoslavia by taking down the top dog. We nailed another dog, but i don't see us exiting the current morass anytime soon.

Good points, though I have issues with what I left unsnipped. We did turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot, more or less and I don't think Baghdad is better from an infrastructure and economic standpoint than we found it. We've also played hunches differently in the past, knowing what exactly WAS pointed at highly populated areas and thank God we managed not to set things off.

No one, not us, not Europe, not Australia, no one, is bringing adequate postwar political strategy to the table. Violent fundamentalism takes root where people have no sense of opportunity or control over their destiny. Frankly, I don't understand how any of us fail to understand how or why this might happen. How many of us would be thrilled that someone came by to bomb the shit out of us for our own greater good? How many of us would be grateful with inadequate food, no water, no job, and no agency?

If we think it's bad now, it's not going to get better. This is not uncharted new territory, think Germany post WWI versus Germany and Japan with a Marshall plan in play. If you humiliate and pound a nation and leave it no chance to recover from the humiliation, you are going to breed some very strange demagogues.

Before anyone ties this thinking to my far-left leanings, I happen to be in agreement with Robert McNamara on this one. Scary thought.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

We did turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot, more or less ... We've also played hunches differently in the past, knowing what exactly WAS pointed at highly populated areas and thank God we managed not to set things off.

Sorry QBoU, i should have clarified. During the Cold War, and for the six years following the ending thereof (while i maintained active status), the US had a standing policy to use nuclear weapons (strategic and tactical) as a first strike weapon when the opposing force "showed tells" of prepping for use any type of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) munition. i haven't asked my buds whether that policy still stands.

Really want to speed up your heart rate? Tactical nuclear weapon release authority regularly moved down to Corps commander (3-star General) level. Said commander didn't need to ask permission of higher to "glaze the battlefield" in his area of operations to accomplish his tactical mission. Most of us realized the 3-star would never pull "that" trigger until opposing forces had significantly put the defensive mission of his Corps at risk, i.e. accomplished a breakthrough in the Corps commander's area of operations.

Now, for the arrhythmia portion of our world history class, do you remember the SCUD missle launches of Desert Shield/Storm by Iraq? Care to guess what would have happened to Baghdad had a single SCUD (destroyed, or not) been found to contain an NBC payload? Voilà, instant Super Walmart parking lot.

... and I don't think Baghdad is better from an infrastructure and economic standpoint than we found it ... Violent fundamentalism takes root where people have no sense of opportunity or control over their destiny.

Depends on your point of view. Electrical power had been returned to pre-war levels within six months. "(T)he vast majority of the damage caused to infrastructure, hospitals, and civilian buildings following the initial invasion was/{is} caused by insurgents who oppose Coalition forces." (lifted from Wikipedia) i applaud the Iraqi people that voted for their own government in the recent free elections (for the first time since the first Ba'athist coup in 1963) regardless for whom they cast their vote. i agree with the Iraqi citizens that want US forces out of their country as soon as possible predicated by the internal stability of their country. Why? i don't want to see one more US servicemember lose life, limb, nor sanity, much less one day longer than necessary in the land of the big PX. i will, however, agree they stay there long enough that we never have to return.

This is not uncharted new territory, think Germany post WWI versus Germany and Japan with a Marshall plan in play. If you humiliate and pound a nation and leave it no chance to recover from the humiliation, you are going to breed some very strange demagogues.

i'll agree with your stating the differences between the post-war plans following WWI & WWII, but i don't think this post-war plan has played out as of yet. For grins and giggles, how many remember another leader with the same script as this? Click me. Key difference between the two? One had the decency to blow his brains out in his bunker rather than surrender meekly, become assured he wouldn't be tortured and executed as he had so many real and imagined rivals, then exhibit the audacity he'd done nothing wrong with his safety assured. The cultures have a different mindset, and therein lies the difference between post-WWII & the current morass. Strange demagogues, indeed.

Before anyone ties this thinking to my far-left leanings, I happen to be in agreement with Robert McNamara on this one. Scary thought.

i've never thought you a lefty, Q-bow. We may have differences on how to get down the road, but the destination remains the same.

 

[O'Mac]

Terrorism is a terrible act indeed, however I fail to see any distinction (other then the level of destruction) between a a group of hijackers flying planes into the World Trade Centre killing over 2,700 Americans, and a series of air, missile, and ground attacks which kill over 3,000 innocent Iraqis.

They are both instances of terrorism, in my opinion, and I don't believe we can make people respect and work towards peace with us if we keep killing them.

 

[WriterDom]

Terrorism is a terrible act indeed, however I fail to see any distinction (other then the level of destruction) between a a group of hijackers flying planes into the World Trade Centre killing over 2,700 Americans, and a series of air, missile, and ground attacks which kill over 3,000 innocent Iraqis.
QUOTE]

Are you talking about Bush or Clinton? Cause Clinton hit them with 400 cruise missiles and 650 bombers. And the cruise missiles alone were a million or so a piece in 1998 dollars. I just hope we got more bang for the buck.

 

[O'Mac]

Are you talking about Bush or Clinton? Cause Clinton hit them with 400 cruise missiles and 650 bombers. And the cruise missiles alone were a million or so a piece in 1998 dollars. I just hope we got more bang for the buck.

I think it can apply to any conflict at any time which involved the killing of men, women, and children who had no reason to die needlessly. It's been happening for centuries now, and the United States, just like the British, French, Russians, and Spanish before them, are just as guilty. As westerners, we all have to accept the fact that in some way or another, we all have blood on our hands for a multitude of non-alturistic reasons.

There is no sense talking about the good intentions behind bombing civilian centres, the fact remains that children are killed, lives destroyed, homes razed, and families torn apart. The majority of the Iraqi people did absolutely nothing to deserve this. They just happened to be living in the wrong country at the wrong time. Much like the innocent people killed on Sept. 11, when you really think about it.

 

[WriterDom]

Well, look at it this way. Was 3000 deaths of innocents worth freeing 26 million who had to live under the tyranny of Saddam? Outside of the 1.5 million in the Baath party anyway. And did you really want Qusay or Uday to take over when Saddam retired? He'll get his day in court.

 

[Kajira Callista]

I think it can apply to any conflict at any time which involved the killing of men, women, and children who had no reason to die needlessly. It's been happening for centuries now, and the United States, just like the British, French, Russians, and Spanish before them, are just as guilty. As westerners, we all have to accept the fact that in some way or another, we all have blood on our hands for a multitude of non-alturistic reasons.

There is no sense talking about the good intentions behind bombing civilian centres, the fact remains that children are killed, lives destroyed, homes razed, and families torn apart. The majority of the Iraqi people did absolutely nothing to deserve this. They just happened to be living in the wrong country at the wrong time. Much like the innocent people killed on Sept. 11, when you really think about it.

I have to ask you this. Have you ever been in a situation such as 9/11? Imagine you're whole family in NY and no long distance service available...imagine watching this all happen on tv...imagine knowing how close your sister lives to what happened, and all your family hearing a plane crashed someplace close to where you lived. Your father on the phone crying because he knows we are now at war.Imagine your son in pre-k, the school in lock down and when you call to go pick him up you are told that state police are there and to please not attempt to go in the parking lot. Lets go to two days later....your friend wandering the streets of manhattan looking for his wife who was working on one of the floors that was hit. The only remains left to bury ...a finger, and that was a month later. War is war, and people die. Thats just the way it is. But ya know what, selfish bitch that i am thinks i really don't give a fuck how many ppl over there die...as long as i am safe here.

I'm not much into all the politics involved with all this but i do know what my head and heart think of it all., and that would be...fuck all of them for fucking with us. *shrug* As for the Iraqi ppl, i don't define complacency as innocence.
Its war, people die, and in the end we hope it was for the better that they lost their lives.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Yanno, for all the US's faults, we must be doing something right if people are willing to go this far.

Charges dropped for undocumented soldier

 

[O'Mac]

Was 3000 deaths of innocents worth freeing 26 million who had to live under the tyranny of Saddam?

Did 22 million Iraqis ever consider themselves under a tyranny? Some did (such as the Kurds), some didn't. For the most part, I believe the Iraqi people spent most of their days doing pretty much like what we do here. Going to work, going to mosque, raising a family, vacationing, etc. To believe that they live and act so differently from us is a falacy. They are people like the rest of us, doing what people do.

I have to ask you this. Have you ever been in a situation such as 9/11?

I haven't felt the direct effects of 9/11 and I'm glad for it, however, what about individuals like Jeremy Glick who's father died in the twin towers and later protested against the war in Afganistan? He was directly affected by the tragedy yet had the incredible courage to stand up for his convictions of peace. He refused to give into blind revenge despite his enourmous loss. What about him and others like him?

In my opinion, armed conflict is sometimes a neccesary and final resort to dangerous political and social conflicts. That said however, I do not believing in trading my security for the lives of innocent people, no matter what colour their skin or what religion they believe in.

This should not be taken as a criticism against the United States soley. As I said, there are a plethora of other nations that have also fought wars in the name of an alturistic concept. I don't believe can ever to bring myself to a point where I wish suffering and death upon innocent people for the sake of my own safety and security.