Sorry your browser is not supported!

You may or may not have heard of the Downing Street Memo. It is a document from the British Parliment (meeting minutes) that basically proves what most of us already knew: Bush is a liar and the illegal war in Iraq had absolutely nothing with "WMD's". This memo proves the facts were made to fit the policy, and that Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless - note the dates on the memo.

Rep. John Conyers has put together an open letter from himself and 98 of his House constituents, demanding answers of the President and his Administration on facts uncovered in the Downing Street Memo. Americans can sign the open letter (petition) demanding answers - As of 3 days ago there were 145,000 signatures, as of today there are nearly 300,000. There are 7 days remaining to sign.

Next thursday there will be official hearings on Capitol Hill regarding the issues raised in the Downing Street memo, where then, Rep Conyers and whomever wants to join him, will march on the White House and hand deliver the letter.

I am urging all Americans, regardless of party or affiliation, to put aside any partisanship, and realise that we were ALL lied to by our government (nothing new) and over 100,000 Iraqis, and over 1600 US servicemen and servicewomen have lost their lives because of it. (not to mention those from other nations)

You can read the Downing Street Memo here:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

You can read and sign the letter put forth by Rep. John Conyers here:
http://www.johnconyers.com

Feel free to discuss this in this thread.
Please keep it flame free - n00b slaps are a dime a dozen these days.

While I agree with the war, as there are many things the Iraqis have hid, I'm glad that you at least live in a country where you are able to have people marching up to the president's estate in anger. Democracy at its best!

Do that in Iraq when Saddam was in power and your entire family would be gutted.





Sadly we'll never know for sure the truth behind many things the government does.

Shutup you stupid lefty cow.

Thread marked as flaimbait - for obvious reasons. Personal insults of any kind will earn newbie-slaps.

Edit: Just to clarify, I realise that this thread was not created for the purpose of starting an argument, but I can well imagine the kind of attention it might attract.

Yes I agree Saddam was a horrible attrocious dictator, and deserved to be overthrown by his people. Unfortunately it didnt work out that way and we again find ourselves involved and dying for no reason. I too was behind the pres on this one when WMD's were the reason. Now we not only know it was a myth, the war plans, and corporate divisions of Iraq were drawn up long long before we heard any whispers of Iraq and WMD in the same breath.

Yes democracy, as it was intended, is awesome - these days its who can afford more gets more.

Jimmy, im not as far Left as you would think, but I am left of center for sure - The Left was never soooo right! ding!

Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

S'on now.

I support Bush.

Why do you support him?

I was joking, surely, but what I would like to know is what people hope to accomplish with this? Until I see this memo transported back in time, I really see no purpose.

We can't pull our troops out yet and trying to get Bush and his adminstration incarcerated would just be pointless, because by the time it ever happened, his term would be plenty up.

You're unhappy with the war, we get it, but it's too late to do anything about it now.

Steps could be taken to reduce the chances of it happening again.

hes already commited impeachable offenses, the republican controlled everything would never have the gnads to put forth the articles of impeachment which are already being written. You forget the entire House has to rerun in 2006. Rue the day if there becomes a democratic majority or a split. 2 years less of Bush that we have to endure is fine by me, since he never "won" in 2000, and 2004 im sure they will find some dirt.

But its not about that, he's lied to you and me, and to Congress. I would like to hear him explain himself.

I thought we (once again) had faulty intelligence.

Meaning, if someone told me that apples are purple, and they showed me a picture of a purple apply, then I as President would say "I saw a purple apple".

Now, if the person who took the picture of the purple, photoshop'ed it and made it purple, am I as President "Lying"? I only reported what was in front of me.

Going upon this basis and only this basis, I would have to say that Bush wasn't lying.

Now, if he was shown a picture of a purple apple and the person who took the image told him, "Look what I was able to do in Photoshop, to turn a red apple into a purple one", then he would be lying.

That's a baseless rumor. There are even net applications where you can fill in all of the possible ways to count the Florida votes, and I believe there are 52 possible ways; in only 4 of them Gore wins. Even with his proposed recount method Bush would have won. Gore had a higher flat popular vote-- but that doesn't mean he 'should' have won the Electoral College. It's just how the system works. And no Democrats were complaining about that in 2004 when they were hoping that Kerry would win the exact same way, with less of the popular vote but skimming by with more of the Electoral.

Cellbloc, did you read the memo and note the dates?

Mouse, thanks I know how the EC works - I was referring to things like the voter roles in florida being purged of so called felons, where the company handling the database matching of these people have come out and said that they were told to "losen" the matching of registered voters and currently convicted felon names - basically illegally purging valid voters and citizens of their right to vote.

But all that aside (the votes in 2000 and 2004) here we are with the memo, that no one in British Parliment is denying, so going forward from that, again, I want the president to explain himself.

Thats all this thread is.

There might not be WMD's. But we have found Weapons that can do a whole lot of destruction . Bush drew that conclusion, although possibly false, from the intelligence he had recieved from the area. Just because you think something, make a decision, and it turns out u thought wrong doesnt mean you lied. Does it mean your wrong? yes. But theres a difference between the two. Putting the fact that no WMD's have been found aside, we are not only liberating Iraqi people, but we are allowing not only the high-ranking officials, but all citizens to be treated as a human. True story:
In Iraq, there were 3 women standing on a street corner, wearing their blue, cover-all, clothes, with the netting on the face. A breeze blew through which blew one of the womens sleeves up to her elbow. A nearby "law enforcer" then marched over and began beating her. She wasnt beaten to death, but she was beaten. This was caught on tape.
This is what it was like before we liberated the Iraqi people. Now they can walk freely around without their hoods and nets and long sleeves on.
Some people say its because we want Iraq's oil. I still have yet to understand why killing terrorists, providing humanitarian aid, reestablishing a government, and reestablishing law enforcement, provides us with oil.
If America didnt think he was doing a good job, why was he elected...twice? These excuses about Bush not "actually" winning in 2000 or 2004 are just explanations trying to make non-Bush supporters feel better. Its like the "Clay Aiken" supporters of the 2003 "American Idol". Many claim and many stories have been made up to say that "Ruben Studard" didnt actually win, but it was a miscount. Are you saying he didnt actually "win" either of those elections? What do you base this on? Your grudge against him not winning? (None of that was targeted towards anyone, just to the general people it applies to, so i apologize if anyone was insulted).

no reason? Fighting to save others lives isnt a reason? Just because its a different country doesnt mean that its any different than in the US. Is a firefighter going into a burning building, possibly never to come out again, no reason? Its just the same as going into a firefight to save the hundreds of thousands, no millions, of people massacred by Suddam Huiessen? (Which is documented and proven). Look away from the fact that we went into Iraq for WMD's, and look to the fact that weve possibly, and probably, saved hundreds of thousands of lives, allowed for normal people to be treated humanly, and helped rebuild a country into a free, democratic country, instead of ruthless dicatorship?

How do we know that? Who drew this conclusion? Anti-Bush, and Anti-War supporters? We went into Iraq suspecting to find WMD, but found something much worse...the killings of innocent people by the thousands, the terrible medical care, the ruthless government, and the fear of thousands of people if theyd be dragged out of their house and shot in the night, or last another day. There are countless stories of people kissing liberating soldiers feet, children running up to them, and mother's thanking them, for giving their son and daughter a better future. Look at the many pictures of Iraqi's celebrating, hugging the soldiers, and dancing around, and on top of the statue of Saddam Huiessen when it was was torn down. We may not have taken WMD's out of Iraq, if there were or are any, but weve given millions upon millions of people better and safer lives. The soldiers that died fighting, died for millions of peoples freedom, which im sure that they do not now regret.

(None of the above was directed at anyone, or meant to insult or offend anyone, so i apologize if you feel insulted, targeted out, or offended from my comments, it was not purposefully).

-Gil Galvanti

EDIT: The last 3 posts were posted during my writing of this reply. Heres a few comments on them:
@Cellbloc Studios: Good point, that is what i was trying to say.

yes, i agree, like i said.

True Story: When 'liberating' Iraqs people, a soldier shot an Iraqi, who layed on the floor, raising up his hands to show he has no weapon. This was caught on tape and I don't want to know the countless incidents that weren't filmed.
You cannot be serious comparing and 'American Idol' election with a presidential election. Bush lied to find a reason to invade Iraqistan, now when everyone discovers it was a lie, you can't go on and try to find other reasons. It was definatly a lie.
It's always the point of view you have to consider. From the Iraqis point of view, the house didn't burn, well only the cake in the baking-oven did burn. Now here come Bushs 'firefighters' and burn the roof, pull down the walls and afterwards they set everything under water. Next day everything is broken and wet, an old tent is handed over to the former inhabitants of the house. The firefighters leave and take the oiltanks with them.



Remember Abu Ghraib?




That must be the reason, why the US Soldiers fear suicide bomb people.

EDIT: Oh and to scrath a little on the image of the USA as the worlds policeman, i recommend to read a little in Chiles history. Especially everything about Augusto Pinochet.

your not looking right
True Story: When 'liberating' Iraqs people, a soldier shot an Iraqi, who layed on the floor, raising up his hands to show he has no weapon. This was caught on tape and I don't want to know the countless incidents that weren't filmed.
You cannot be serious comparing and 'American Idol' election with a presidential election. Bush lied to find a reason to invade Iraqistan, now when everyone discovers it was a lie, you can't go on and try to find other reasons. It was definatly a lie.
It's always the point of view you have to consider. From the Iraqis point of view, the house didn't burn, well only the cake in the baking-oven did burn. Now here come Bushs 'firefighters' and burn the roof, pull down the walls and afterwards they set everything under water. Next day everything is broken and wet, an old tent is handed over to the former inhabitants of the house. The firefighters leave and take the oiltanks with them.


well, guess what? That wasnt the government, it was a stupid soldiers action. I know someone that served in the new iraq war (seriously, not some of this bull some people litter with), and they did praise them, and they are only scared of the insurgents dunce. You look at the actions of a soldier for a action of which has a small base, of the governement.

i sure wish americans would support their own troops...

our family is good friends with a 2nd Lt serving in Iraq as a medic, and i can tell you he wouldn't at all agree that they are "dying for no reason".


Why would he lie to do something like that? It's not as though he's benifits at all from this campaign... there has to be a motive

The motive was to be re-elected. Presidents almost always get re-elected during war-time elections.

[edit] And his father made him do it.

Gil, Apparently you havent read the Downing street memo, and have missed the point completely. No one is saying the Administration lied because they didn't find WMD, they are liars because regardless of the reasons they were giving in late 2002, 2003, they had already made up their minds to invade Iraq PRIOR TO THAT. If they said they were going to find pink bunnies it wouldnt matter, there would be no pink bunnies. The manipulated the facts to fit the policy and lied to all of us, including Congress.

All of the other stuff you mention, some of it moral, is basically revisionist. And how does 100,000 dead iraquis make iraquis safer? How does creating a new terrorist breeding ground make anyone safer there or in that region. How does it make America safer? It doesnt.

@Peter_, How do you conclude I dont support our troops - Thats pretty presumptious since I have two friends there now USMC and USARMY. Becareful what you assume. Also I was behind the president and the war when I drank the coolaid and fell for the lies. I have always supported our troops and always will. I blame the pathetic administration, no one else.

is there something wrong with that? Or are you just saying it wasn't factual?

I'm still opened minded about this...if it turns out that Bush really was just making up facts to go to war just so he could be re-elected then my opinion of him will decrease drastically...but from what i can tell, it doesn't seem to me like he did...i may be wrong but that's just my impression.

Seeing this memo isn't enough to change my mind...the red highlighted text and underlining kind of turned me off...if it's the truth then just state it like the truth...don't try to twist it and make it look the way you want it to (not saying they twisted it alot just saying i get annoyed when people do that )

Pardon TheBigBabou, he gets his news from Hankie the Christmas Poo.



Comparing an isolated incident involving disgraceful acts by a small group of soldiers to Saddam's reign only proves your credibility when speaking on this subject



I'm sure the people of Iraq appreciate your stereotype that they're all suicide bombers.

A large majority of the people were glad when we came, now, over a year (maybe 2 years) later, they'd be just as happy to see us leave. They are not violent about it. They are just getting tired of us being there and feel they no longer need us, which is perfectly understandable.

You need to look at the big picture and not at small isolated incidents that may or may not actually be true. Open your eyes to what's actually happening.

No

No

are you reading the same thread?

The motive was to not be blamed for another 9/11. Blamed by half-wit, michael-moore-worshiping liberals.

yeah...i was just confused as to why you said "some of it moral"...could imply lots of different things (you could have said moral as in "some of that's good moral stuff" or you could have been saying it in a "well that's just moral stuff so it doesn't pertain to what we're saying")


good point...at that time if he did go to war people would eventually get mad at him when the newness of it wore off...(*ahem* now)

and if he didn't go to war and we get "terrorized" again then everybody would be saying "you stupid idiot!!! why didn't you do something!!! you should have know attacks would continue after 9/11!!!"

[edit] yikes this thread is growing fast

I find it interesting how people say the war did more good than harm use percentiles, and people saying it did more harm than good use flat statistics without comparing them. The amount of civilian deaths in the war pales in comparisin to the amount Saddam has excecuted over the years of his regime, even if you count civilians killed by the insurgent groups.

I'm not saying the cause for the war was justified, but I think anyone saying Iraq will be a worse place for it is looking at it from an extremely skewed perspective, and has probably never read up on what Saddam's regime was like.

Instead he preyed on the fears 9/11 left, using catch phrases like "WMD" and "Terrorists" to try and justify an illegal war.

Where is Usama Bin Laden? Wait lets check the Usama-Clock...

"Mr Usama Clock, how long has it been since Bush promised to catch Usama Bin Laden dead or alive, yee-haw?"

Thirteen Hundred - Sixty One days.

(Jimmy thats 1361 , and spare us the "michael moore worshipping" bit)

9/11 left justified fears. You know the news doesn't report terrorist attacks that are prevented .

(And spare me the "patriot act worshipping" bit )

This reminds me of a quote I once heard:

""

CR, I agree with you that they had planned to attach Iraq even before the intelligence reports, but I still don't think I was lied to. The intelligence reports could have been "Fixed" to give the impression of WMD, giving Bush the ability to go forward with his "War" plan, and as someone stated, to win the next election.

But the point I was making, even if Bush *knew* in his heart that there was no WMD and he was itching for an excuse, if the intelligence stated that their was WMD (which at this moment seems quite wrong), he didn't lie. He went with the information provided to him and the rest of congress. That's not lying. It is misreading.

If I got a dump truck, strapped a log onto it and drove it down the road, and a spy plane flies over and thinks it is a scud laucher, and by looking at the picture, it looks like a scud launcher. I send out a squadron of A-10 to blast the hell out of it and find that it was two farmers taking a tree to their field for tiling, did they "lie" that it was a scud launcher?

Mouse, go read up on the attrocities in Uzbeketzstan(sp), and read up on our recent dealings with that brutal regimes dictator, why are we so friendly? Can we say "pipeline".

Saddams regime wasnt so bad or evil when they were fighting Iran and we were arming them, now were they.

Theres no standpoint that couldnt be described as skewed. Nevertheless, you and I were lied to.

Now let's count how many days Osama has been in hiding.

Who the heck knows right?

But it's a whole crappa hecka lot more than Saddam.

Osama has had YEARS to plan a method of hiding and execute it.

Saddam was sitting in his living room watching TV when he turned on the news... "Oh crappizzle, they're really coming! Sweet manifolds, somebody grab my suitcase!"

I think he was only half shaven when they found him, too.

Yes, theres cases of corrupt soldiers. How do you know this happens a lot? I bet it happens very very rarely.


Whats wrong with that, theyre both millions of people voting and the losing side, holding a grudge, makes up a story to make themselves feel better.


Like i said theres a difference between lying and being wrong. If you tell someone your going to the grocery store to get some apples, and it turns out there arent any, so you buy oranges, are you lying? No, your just wrong. BTW, its just "Iraq" or "Afghanistan", looks like you combined the two .


umm, i dont get it...what does the US soldiers being scared of suicide bombers, who try to kill them, have to do with friendly pro-American Iraqis that are glad theyre there?


Yes you cant compare the actions of the government or George Bush to the killing of an innocent civilian by accident or just by a corrupt soldier.


no sry i didnt , i just saw it was an umm..."friendly discussion" about the war and Bush lying so i thought id join in .


because those 100,000 dead Iraqis are the ones killing them .


no. Why would he go to war 3 years before the next election, expect the war to be over before a year and then think he could be re-elected because of it?


i agree.


agreed, no offense intended


i guess i agree on this...i mean i wouldnt want a country staying in the US after freeing us 2 years earlier. But on the other side, their government is not yet strong enough to function by itself yet.


Whats illegal about freeing an opressed country dicatorship? Like i said, from the intelligence they could have reason to believe that there were WMD's and the "Terrorists" is justified and there are terrorists there.


Yeah, youd be surprised, look it up, and youll see the # of terrorists attacks that have been prevented.


If this was true, why would we be fighting Iraq.I f we wanted to be like that wed be nice to them cause...can we say "Oil", .


lol!

Wow, 100'000 insurgents? And those are just the ones we killed? No wonder we're having such trouble over there! </sarcasm>

Check your numbers, that's including civilian casualties.

[EDIT: ] Well, I just ate my own words: 22111 civilian casualties at minimum, according to iraqbodycount.net. With 80'000 to make up for, maybe I should take off that sarcasm tag!

And about the Bush thing, either he lied to the American people and Congress about WMD's, he's an idiot who shouldn't be president anyway, or America has really bad intelligence.

If you were an intelligence officer trusted with the safety of the nation, you wouldn't say "OMGWTFBBQ they have teh nukes!!!" after looking at 1 or 2 pictures for the same reason as the log example above; you'd delve a little deeper and find more evidence.

If you were the president, trusted with the safety of the nation, you wouldn't run to the UN, the Congress, and the American people and say "OMGWTFBBQ they have teh nukes!!!" after your intel officer shows you those 1 or 2 pictures.

I think it's suspicious that Bush took this shoddy evidence and rushed to make a case out of it, rather than ask the intel officers to keep looking for something more concrete. Exaggeration, making up facts, call it what you want, to me, that's either lying or being just plain dumb.

ok, not quite that many, but the sacrifice of few innocents is necessary for the freedom of millions.

Ok, tell us, how many civilians? EXACTLY.

Hmmmm interesting things. If Bush lied, then fark him. Vote John McKane or Giuliani 2008.


Because if we reform their government correctly like we did with Japan in WW2 that's another ally + oil supplier for us.


Anyway,
Our current situation boils down to two issues:
extremists
we're still in Iraq


Extremists include any right wings or left wings. If one party wants to win the world over, they need to shift a bit in the opposite direction, be more moderate. Then they'll win part of both camps. I personally would like to see some democrats be more conservative, and that starts with stopping broadcasts of Michael Moore's bs documentaries and such.

But thats not the only reason, and not the main reason for our reforming of their government. Do you agree that democracy is the best kind of government? And besides, i think thats smart, since were in the situation anyways we might as well get another ally.

This is a very serious issue, and I'm not trying to make light of it, but :

* Our goverment lies to us, the citizens
* And many Americans lie to the goverment by cheating the IRS, breaking laws, etc.

I don't believe that the government is one solid, well put together entity that continually tries to lie to us and cover up the truth.

I believe that the goverment is simply made up of flawed human beings, just like you and me, who lie and do bad things, just like you and me.

I'm not saying it's wrong, and I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying don't be too shocked to find out that you've been lied to.

i agree, although i still dont think i would consider it a "lie" .

Right, but when people "lie to the government", usually they get punished in some way so they don't do it again. Likewise for the government, ideally. But so-far this is the first time Bush has gotten into serious hot water for his actions. What govt. officials on both sides need to remember is that they work for the people and, like a corporate boss, if we don't like what they're doing we can fire them, either through impeachment or elections.

If we get crafty with our taxes does it lead to war?

>There might not be WMD's. But we have found Weapons that can do a
>whole lot of destruction .

Weapons are meant to do a whole lot of destruction.

>Bush drew that conclusion, although possibly false, from the
>intelligence he had recieved from the area.

Many people who where privy to the discussions in the administration at that time have said that the administration wanted to annex Iraq and felt that 911 was a great opportunity to do so.

Of course the intelligence was ´faulty. The administration only wanted to hear about WMD's in Iraq, even if it came from the most unreliable sources they could find. As long as the sources said that Iraq had WMD's, they couldn't care less.

>Just because you think something, make a decision, and it turns out
>u thought wrong doesnt mean you lied. Does it mean your wrong? yes.
>But theres a difference between the two.

The great thing about politics supported by the worlds most expensive military, is that you can do pretty much anything and you won't have to worry about consequences, because the blame can always be put on someone else.

>Putting the fact that no
>WMD's have been found aside, we are not only liberating Iraqi
>people, but we are allowing not only the high-ranking officials,
>but all citizens to be treated as a human.

Well, the prisoners in Abu-Ghraib, Gitmo and the general population of Iraq may not agree with that.

>True story:
>In Iraq, there were 3 women standing on a street corner, wearing
>their blue, cover-all, clothes, with the netting on the face. A
>breeze blew through which blew one of the womens sleeves up to her
>elbow. A nearby "law enforcer" then marched over and began beating
>her. She wasnt beaten to death, but she was beaten. This was caught
>on tape.

I've seen you refer to this before and there are several problems with it.

>wearing
>their blue, cover-all, clothes, with the netting on the face.

That's called a burqa and is rarely used in Iraq. It is extensively used in Afghanistan however.

>A breeze blew through which blew one of the womens sleeves up to
>her elbow. A nearby "law enforcer" then marched over and began
>beating her.

Iraq never had religious police, neither did Iraq have Hijab or Burqa imposed by law.

A friend of mine, an Iraqi who left Iraq many years ago but has been taking his family back on vacation regularly, told me that even shortly before the US invasion, his 2 daughters had no problems walking around in the city wearing jeans and a shirt.

My conclusion is that you've seen a video of 3 Afghan women being beaten by the Afghan religious police, and then out of sheer cultural ignorance you assumed that this happens in all countries where there are muslims. Then you felt that this could be used to justify the US invasion of Iraq.

>This is what it was like before we liberated the Iraqi people. Now
>they can walk freely around without their hoods and nets and long
>sleeves on.

Actually they can't. Before, the police enforced a strict anti religious policy in Iraq, which meant that any attempt to excersize sharia would be severely punished.

The reality today is that women cannot leave their homes without being accompanied by a male family member. If they do, they risk being killed. Before the US invasion, women were not forced to wear hijab, but as the local powerstructure is now based on local islamic clerics with private armies, women must now wear hijab or risk death.
Those same armies are patrolling in front of schools and academic institutions refusing to let women enter, because their local islamic clerics believe that women should not go to school.

My conclusion is that you are deliberately lying. The plight of Iraqi and for that matter Afghan women have been covered extensively in the west, so when you say 'Now they can walk freely around without their hoods and nets and long sleeves on.' you are lying.

>Some people say its because we want Iraq's oil. I still have yet to
>understand why killing terrorists, providing humanitarian aid,
>reestablishing a government, and reestablishing law enforcement,
>provides us with oil.

Let's take them one by one.

>killing terrorists

The US created these terrorists. It supported and sponsored Al-quaida and the whole Afghani mujahedin movement. The US is killing more civilian iraqis than terrorists, it's just so easy to call them terrorists.

>providing humanitarian aid

You mean spending millions on US companies charging hundreds of times what local iraqi contracters ask for, hiring mostly foreign workers.

If the US hired local contractors in stead of using Iraq to funnel money to US companies like Haliburton, Iraq would not have a 60% unemployment rate.

>reestablishing a government

A government of people loyal to the US, while at the same time having to subject themselves and their country to US policy. The US is in control of the inteligence service and IMF is in control of the fiscal and monetary policies.The internal policies with regard to taxation and ownership of businesses are still subject to the rules that Paul Bremmer created, limiting the taxrate, wile allowing everyone foreign and domestic to own Iraqi businesses.

>reestablishing law enforcement

But there is virtually no law-enforcement in Iraq. The only thing resembling law enforcement is the local clerics, their private armies and their reliance on sharia.

>Some people say its because we want Iraq's oil.

The reason GWB went to war, was to be able funnel US treasury funds into the pockets of his friends and supporters. Oil and military bases are merely a bonuses.

>If America didnt think he was doing a good job, why was he
>elected...twice?

He wasn't!

>Are you saying he didnt actually "win" either of those elections?
>What do you base this on?

The CEO of Diebold virtually guranteed that he would win, well in advance of the actual election. Computerized voting based on proprietary systems and software is unreliable and easy to tamper with.

>no reason? Fighting to save others lives isnt a reason? Just
>because its a different country doesnt mean that its any different
>than in the US.

The US is killing Iraqis faster than Saddam Hussein ever did. If that constitutes life saving, I am guessing that most iraqis and most americans would rather be without.

>Its just the same as going into a firefight to save the hundreds of
>thousands, no millions, of people massacred by Suddam Huiessen?
>(Which is documented and proven).

The US estimates that upwards of 250,000 people have been unlawfully killed in Iraq during the Saddam Hussein reign. NGO's estimate upwards of 500,000 dead. Apparently you decided to make up a number.

>Look away from the fact that we went into Iraq for WMD's, and look
>to the fact that weve possibly, and probably, saved hundreds of
>thousands of lives, allowed for normal people to be treated
>humanly, and helped rebuild a country into a free, democratic
>country, instead of ruthless dicatorship?

>possibly, and probably, saved hundreds of thousands of lives

At the price of half a million children since 1991 and perhaps as many as 100,000 iraqis during the US invasion.

>allowed for normal people to be treated humanly

-Abu-Ghraib!
-local warlords
-islamic clerics cutting off hands, lashing people and stoning them to death.

>and helped rebuild a country into a free, democratic
>country, instead of ruthless dicatorship?

-The US is in control of internal security.
-The IMF is in control of the fiscal and economic policy.
-The 'government' is subject to US reles made by Paul Bremmer
-Internal issues are subject to US rules by Paul Bremmer

>We went into Iraq suspecting to find WMD, but found something much
>worse...the killings of innocent people by the thousands

The US already knew about the killings. Remember that the US helped start the iraqi WMD programme, helped Iraq in the war against Iran, and didn't mind people dieing, as long as they were communists, socialists, democrats etc.

>the terrible medical care

Before 1990, Iraq had one of the worlds best health systems. After the 1991 restrictions, a number of american and british UN managers would ban anything from pencils and paperclips to syringes and medicine, because Iraq could have used the pencils from making bombs and the medicine for making WMD's.

> the ruthless government, and the fear of thousands of people if
>theyd be dragged out of their house and shot in the night, or last
>another day.

The old trick of painting your enemy as an irrational opponent. Iraq was certainly a dictatorship, but the oppression was not irrational or random. If you opposed the regime or posed a threat to the regime you were dealt with, but that doesn't mean that every person was afraid for his life. Remember that most iraqis were dependant on the regime to feed and clothe them.

As for the insurgents during Saddam Hussein, well if you rebel against the leadership of your country, you should expect to be dealt with. What do you think will happen if an american decides to kill the US president because he feels that the federal government has usurped power which rightfully belong to the states(a popular libertarian idea)?

>There are countless stories of people kissing liberating soldiers
>feet, children running up to them, and mother's thanking them, for
>giving their son and daughter a better future. Look at the many
>pictures of Iraqi's celebrating, hugging the soldiers, and dancing
>around, and on top of the statue of Saddam Huiessen when it was was
>torn down.

And the very same thing happened when Hitler declared Anschluss and annexed Austria. When he drove through Vienna, rosepetals were thrown in front of the car, and people were 'heiling' like crazy.

Things are not always as they seem.

>We may not have taken WMD's out of Iraq, if there were or are any,
>but weve given millions upon millions of people better and safer
>lives.

No, actually those who had jobs before are now unemployed. The women can't work or go to school without fearing for their lives. They have to live in fear of unexploded clusterbombs and getting bombed at night while they sleep, because the US made a mistake. If they get stuck in trafic, their car will be run over by a US tank, and if someone takes a shot at the american soldiers, the US soldiers open fire and kill men women and children.

>Why should The soldiers that died fighting, died for millions of
>peoples freedom, which im sure that they do not now regret.

Dieing is dieing.

Andy

Ok, i must resist all urges to retaliate andinsult anyone, so here we go.

There was a period beetween the time of the first Iraqi war and the current one measuring about 15 years. Now tell me, what do you think Saddam huessain was doing in that period of time? Cruising around his country enjoying the view? No, I dont think thats the case. But what saddam hussain most likely was doing was storing away his weapons in underground bunkers and sierria.

As for the U.S government being corrupt, yes, indeed our country is such. However, you name a country in the world that has not had lieing,bribing and the likes within the goverment scene. Just remember, bush wasnt the first politicion to lie, and weather he did or not isnt for me to say.

The funny thing - no, not funny as in amusing but as in strange - is that for every military victory you have, for every iraqi you put into Abu Ghraib, for every car bomb that goes off amongst civilians, and for every military success you have against the insurgents you are loosing.

The insurgents don't have to win a single battle. The insurgents don't have to do anything else than persist. Merely by persisting they will "win" the war. Before the first gulf war the military rightly feared being dragged into a quagmire like Vietnam, and they got out as quickly as they could.

Those fears were justified, because here you are - smack in the middle of the quagmire where the troops are fighting a war that they can't fight effectively. A high tech army wins a war by overwhelming and rapid application of force. An opposing army will crumble under such an onslaught - just like the regular Iraqi army did. It blew away like dust before the attack.

But a modern high tech army is hampered by constrictions in a situation like this quagmire because it cannot function as it is supposed to function. It can not use overwhelming and rapidly applied force against a foe that hides among the civilians. Since it can not function like it is meant to function, it does not function very well at all.

That leads to frustration, that leads to battle fatigue, that leads to Abu Ghraib. Desperation on the part of the stunted army is what leads to Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the accounts of the attitude toward iraqis in teh US armed forces.

And by continuing, by persisting, the insurgency reinforces that which polarises the cilivians more and more against the army. In the end, you could only win by killing all iraqis to be safe. Or by pulling out. This is what happened in Vietnam, by the way, the war situation that the US military swore it would never engage in again.

It will be a sad day when the last helicopter leaves from the embassy roof in Bagdad, but these days I don't doubt that this will happen. And from the ashes of Iraq will rise a theocratically enclined shiite state will will tear itself apart when sunnis and kurds refuse to live the shiite way. The kurds of the north will have their state, and that will pull in Turkey and Syria and Iran in another mess because they can not abide a kurdish national state.

One question I want to ask all the people here in support of the war who say its justified BECAUSE is was a dictatorship:

Who gives America the right to police the world, and tell other people what to do? Doesn't that kind of counteract the whole liberty and democracy thing that is always deemed to be at the heart of American actions? Just because you can, doesn't mean you have a right to do things. If you saw someone get mugged, and you went over and killed the mugger JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN, that very same government would prosecute you because its against the law.

Is it just me, or is there no logic in that.

Well done Andy, Micro (and others) I was starting to think no one else got it. Last night I started to do a systematic decompile of points, much like Andy did, and then I couldnt post to the forums, so I went to bed.

I see a lot of people using the logic that because Saddam was so bad its ok we are there. And if we would not have invaded we are somehow bad or uncaring.... How is this justified? Why are we not invading North Korea? China? Countless other countries who are just as bad or worse than Saddam's Iraq was? And how is it conceivable that if I say "we are over there, dying for no reason" that certain people take that as "not supporting the troops"? You are willing to sacrafice the troops, I'm saying they shouldnt be over there in the first place - bring them home, yet I am the one not supporting them?

I have been screaming since 1999 not to allow this admin into office, and its been obvious since day one that it would be a matter of time that we would be lied to about something major - unfortunately lots of people from lots of countries are dying for it. I want to bring as much attention to the downing street memo and the efforts of our good statesmen like Rep Conyers and others, and hope people try to take in all the facts, and base their decisions on that, rather than spout rhetoric from partisan lines. You have the links, you decide.

Nothing much to say on this issue, but I'm pleased its stayed clean.
This is a good thing for the community (since such a 'flame-able' post has stayed boayant). Well anyway.... hope I didn't speak to soon

Gil Galvanti -

Personally, I feel you suffer from Ann Coulter syndrome, with the exception of you actually being male, where as Ann Coulter is a sex change. If you don't belive me, take a look at the cover of 'Slander' she has a freakin adams apple.

Andy covered it pretty well, but I wanna touch a few grounds myself.



No, we've found minor weapons that can do some little bits of destruction. We have found NO, and I repeat that word NO (as it has a lot of importance) Weapons of MASS Destruction. Now lets take a look back on the past, and think, What was Muff's (bush) major point to get us in there?

-There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, biggins (as they would say in Texas)!

Holy non-existent WMD's Batman!



I belive he won, you know why? Americans are uninformed idiots by nature. Thats why he won.



We can't save people who were already massacred

Either way, IMHO The way Saddam was running Iraq was slightly drastic, but, Its how countries in that region need to be run IMO. The people only respond to fear. Atleast, thats my opinion on it.



There are also stories I hear from people coming back of car bombs, suicide bombers, and gunfire. But you seem to miss that it seems....

Anyway, your hard headed "bush it right, your wrong, and if you don't agree, your a terrorist" views bore me... so on to:

Mouse -



You know, if the electoral votes are all that matters anymore, why bother voting? Just have our congressmen and senators select who the f*** they want. It seems if a president can't be elected by a popular vote, then theres no point in voting anyway right? I sure as hell see no need to vote for anyone if the winner of the popular vote dosen't win...

Not saying I wanted gore or kerry in office. Frankly, I'd prefer saddam over Bush, Gore, or Kerry.

I'm tired now, so I shall stop writing.

Ok I did speak too soon.....

WMD's are not the only reason for war - Saddam being rather unstable is also a very good cause (he could of easily retrieved WMD's)

Also, he was a dictator, but most importantly oil. America's main reaosning was oil. But I don't mind. They need oil, so fighting for it is OK (but they did lie)

Also, if Saddam did have WMD's, they would of probably of been bought of AMerica in the first place.... so the vicious circle begins

Or France

....