The World did not oppose the Iraq war because of Bush.

[wasichu]

The planet and the UN opposed it because there is no legal basis for invading and occupying a country that is no threat.
Some people on our side are in denial if they think it is even possible to legitimize the occupation.
Iraq has a right to self determination wihtout ANYONE interfering.
If anyone thinks we have a responsibility to provide security, then let me contact a Army recruiter for you.

[boobooday]

1. Big Problem: Who is the enemy?

Bush hollered about Saddam Hussein for so long . . . now he is gone, and we are hated by the people we supposedly went to liberate.

Are they now the enemy? What a twisted scene this all turned out to be.



http://www.wgoeshome.com

[DrWeird]

2. The world did oppose it.

The only people who went along with it were the British, the Israelis, and a few third world countries that we bribed.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. heh--it is too late

Iraq and it's people, who were never our enemy and who now are suffering under an illegal occupation by evil corporatists who wanted their stuff, will never be allowed to regain what is rightfully theirs. They are the "conquored" even though they never once--never once, threatened to make war on us.

Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, wants to keep the stuff that Bush got by killing tens of thousands of innocent people. The opposition party will criticize just how stupid he was in his occupation, but few will admit that they really like what he did--and they are willing to KEEP it.

They WANT to KEEP it--it is GOOD stuff--black gold

they also want to be the big cheeze in charge of all that stuff--that windfall that Bush got, so booting out Bush on his "methods" and his confusing occupation, is their goal while thye are willing to take from the Iraqi people, what is rightfully theirs.

They DO want to stay in Iraq and KEEP the stuff we got with an illegal war.

[xxqqqzme]

4. god forbid,

we should allow people, in the TWENTIF**KINGFIRST CENTURY, to have control of their natural resources and how they R governed.

[aquart]

5. True. But.

We did it. We broke it. The rules state that the invader is responsible for the people of the nation invaded.

If you think we are despised now, wait and see what happens if we pack up and leave a destroyed nation with no government, no infrastructure, no police, nothing. What backs up their money?

We were told not to go in because this would happen. I'm pretty sure I yelled it from the rooftops. Quagmire. Can't stay. Can't leave.

However. The whole dynamic changes with a new president. LOT of rebuilding to do in international relationships. The tax cut must be voided. In toto. Start from scratch. Otherwise we will risk destabilizing other currencies as well as our own, and no one will negotiate with us until this is taken care of.

After that, the Iraqi groups have to be brought to the table and kept there until they hammer out something that suits THEM. Halliburton, etc. has to leave.

Were you thinking we should pull out and leave the corporate mercenaries in charge? Or did you think they'd leave with us?

The first step to exiting Iraq is dumping George. That will give us an advantage with all the groups involved. Then negotiate in good faith and keep our word. What a nice change that will be.

[markomalley]

6. Just Like Kosovo

which the UN didn't support, either.

[KoKo]

7. If we leave on June 30th and Iraq erupts in to Civil War...It's THEIR

Civil War...their country is "free from Saddam." The "supposed real reason we invaded them." If we leave they are released or "liberated" as the Repugs would say, from their dictator.

So, let's get the Hell out and let them decided how to govern themselves!

We managed to get through our own Civil War or War Between the States without foreign intervention (although the Brits helped the South tremendously in the beginning) but after that we were "on our own."

Why can't the Iraqi's be allowed to be "on their own." Unless it was all about Oil, PNAC and a Crusade against Islamics to destabilize the whole ME to support Sharon's view of Isreal. :shrug:

[Tinoire]

8. No but the pro-war faction will now strike what they think is a moral pose

and start spouting all sorts of garbage such as "we broke it, we must now fix it".

Screw that. You KNEW rape was wrong and now you want to stick around and "console" the victim. Give me a fucking break. People want us to stay over there for only 2 reasons

1. To syphon off as much oil as we can
2. To protect Israel from the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar, IOW the Iraqis & all Muslims now sympathizing with them AND the Palestinians

Not a single American life is worth either of those reasons.

We need to pull out now, make some serious financial reparations, and beg God for mercy over what we did.

[leftistagitator]

10. What you're saying is like

Killing a person and leaving it's children to starve because "You've already done enough harm". This war was a bad idea, so the world wouldn't and shouldn't have supported it even if it was a Democrat in office. But plunging Iraq into chaos is an even worse idea, so the world heartily supports establishing a good government there through the UN now. That's why France offered to help us rebuild Iraq after the war. Spain, Russia, and Germany have also offered aid. Moron* is the worst diplomat ever, and his siphoning of funds to his friends slush funds also hurts our ability to internationalize the process. We must stay until there until there is something to replace us, anything else would be a disaster for the people of Iraq and the world.

And as far as joining up goes, there is no way in hell I'm serving to fatten the wallets of *'s friends. If Kerry announces that we need a draft, I will serve.

[markses]

9. Partially correct

Despite voluminous hemming and hawing after Chirac's UN speech (before the invasion) among the punditocracy, few actually heard what he was talking about. He was talking about immanent determinations of justice; he was talking about the end of feudal capitalism, withg its a priori and transcendent standards. We should be very clear that the US is almost completely in the dark about the ethical principles and philosophical standpoints that informed the world rejection of the Iraq war, choosing instead to hide behind the sacchrine ethics of an obsolete version of liberation theology. The US is not on the cutting edge. It is a feudal state - and it has no future unless it changes, and that damn quick.