RW email that made the rounds in April and my response (long)

[never cry wolf]

This is something I received from a very close friend in early April, it was entitled "Snappy answers to all those pansy anti war people," and I can't ever remember being so motivated and pissed off!! I read it and inserted my responses (in bold), it took me about an hour at the time, I was motivated.

At the time it was yet 3 1/2 months until I discovered DU but 3 weeks after we invaded Iraq. I believe that for the most part, through independent news reading, I was pretty much on the money but since I have discovered DU there is much more I would have added knowing now what I have learned from DU.

I would like to add additional comments to each line and send back to my friend as well as others and was hoping for some help. I am much too tired tonight to do it alone, as it is a LOOOOONG email. Please, select one or two of the arguments (or more, if motivated as I was when I first read it) and add your thoughts and/or links to back them up. I am also interested in long time DUers opinions of my responses sans the benefit of the DU resource last April.

Thanks to all in advance, here it is:

I support our troops, i support the war effort. I am sick of people who don't. Every day you hear some shit from some pacifist democrat who thinks the war is WRONG! Well, alot of things are WRONG with this world, quit your whining. So, my repsonses to their crap....

i support our troops and appreciate their efforts as well but do not support the war, i just wish they were not being put at risk unnecessarily. there is no logical reason for it and it will only make things worse at the cost of american and innocent civilian lives. every day you hear crap from some right wing bully who wants to nuke the world, so they can just quit with their selfish insensitivity. yeah, alot of things are wrong with this world, why add to them??

Them:Young americans will die in battle.
Me: Would you rather they die in skyscrapers?

no, i would rather that they and all live. making war against a country will not stop the terrorists who have no country, spending 75 billion on food and drugs in that part of the world or beefing up our first defense of intelligence and fire and police support would!

them: they US is taking unilateral action against Iraq

me: so far, it is a 90 member worldwide 'unilateral' coalition.

actually it is 45, 10 of who don't want their names listed and a few of which found out they were supporting this from reading it in the newspapers. only 3 countries have sent fighting troops and austrailia is talking impeachment over their 2,000. of this "coalition", most need the US in other areas for trade or foreign aid, which we have offer to many in abundance, or have big treaties pending that they do not want to risk. most in the world have refused. oooohhh we have eritrea and the marshall islands on our side!!! many also have a horrible human rights record theirownself. here is a list: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/EC28Ak01.html

them: we are in a rush to war!

me: a 12 year rush?

3 weeks ago it was a choice of waiting 2 more months to see what the inspectors can find. if they found something and saddam did not get rid of it, then the un would approve use of force and we wud have a REAL coalition. if they found and disarmed him, well that is what this is sposed to be bout, right? there was absolutely no threat whatsoever of anything happening in the meantime with the strongest sanctions ever imposed upon a country and the microscope of the world watching for sadaam to try to pull anything would be a death sentence. to chance the potential downside and spill american and innocent blood over two fucking months doesn't make any sense, unless you know that the reason the admin didn't want that is cuz they didn't WANT the un to disarm iraq cuz that wud take away their pretext for invading, that is why they were in a hurry.

them: tough inspections can disarm saddam without invading iraq

me: 12 yrs of inspections have done us wonders so far

sadaam'smilitary strength was a fraction of what it was during the last war, he has been effectively contained for 12 years. his nuclear program completely disbanded and at least 95% of his other non-conventional weapons are gone as well, he has done no act of agression towards anyone in those 12 years and was a paper tiger. the inspections were WORKING extremely well!!!!

them: we should let the inspectors finish their jobs

me: we did. they didnt. WE WILL.

we did not, they asked for 2 more months which they felt was needed to finish the job. i DO believe that chem or bio agents will be found but i am not so sure they will have been there since BEFORE the war. the US does not want international observers along with their inspection teams.

them: there's no prrof of weapons

me: we know they have em, we know they hide em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An iraqui rocket in Martin Sheens shorts?

then why didn't we share this info with the un? oh, we did you say?? including the incredibly poorly forged documents about purchase of uranium from nigeria (that the cia told the admin were fake before they were presented) and the brit report that was plagarized from a calif students paper? if we know and didn't tell the security council, why not? if we did show them all the proof we have how come 9 of the 15 members didn't believe it was proof positive or that it posed so immediate a threat that war was necessary. why was the info not turned over to the inspectors so they could locate it??? things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm."

them: if we invade, sadam might use those weapons of mass destruction against us

me: i thought you said iraq didnt have them?

no, he may have some left but our invasion is the ONLY circumstance where he would use them. our prior policy of deterrence and containment worked, he knew if he used them he would be in for retaliation and turned to dust. the cia said that our invasion and backing him into a corner may make him use those weapons, btw, not a liberal pacifist and they made it public because the admin ignored their warnings and they wanted to CYA.

them: but terrorists might attack if we invade iraq

me: oh, so if we dont attack iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

terrorism will increase 10 fold, maybe 100 fold. a billion muslims that didn't give us much of a passing thought now hate our guts. in addition, we are quickly losing the support of other countries in the real war on terrorism as well as directing fbi, cia, nsa and other intelligence resources away from the real enemies, osama, et al. not to mention the police and firemen who have been called up to serve. of course the bush budget cuts money to the states to pay for this front line of defense anyway so what the hell....

them: we shouldnt go to war without a UN resolution

me: another resolution? what about the last 18 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or should we use the same resolutions bill clinton used in bosnia? (he didnt go to the UN on bosnia)

well, maybe we should invade the record holder for violating un resolutions and one of the leading human rights violators, israel, who has 30 to their name including one from 1967 (a longevity record as well) for occupying a foreign country. and they would have dozens more if we didn't use our veto power in the security council. or maybe one of the other 6 countries with more violations than iraq. the bosnia action was a true humane action and we had a real coalition that included all of nato.

them: we dont have a real declaration for war

me: it's called joint congressional resolution number 114

which is currently being challenged as unconstitutional, and is.

them: we are giving turkey 20 billion dollars. we could use that money at home.

me: Ok, we will use that $ to strengthen our iraqui border with wyoming

sure would pay for alot of police, firefighters, fbi and cia agents tho. they cud provide a whole lot more help against terrorism than this shit.

them: if north korea has nuclear weapons, why arent we invading them first?

me: Uh...hello...isnt that the point?

isn't what the point?? north korea yesterday said iraq was stupid for submitting to inspections, look what it got them. nk will NEVER submit now and every country on the verge is hustling thier buns to develop nukes so that they aren't the next iraq. this war sure is making things safe, huh? btw: iraq has NO NUKES!!! has no possibility of ever getting nukes under the unprecedented world scrutiny and even if they did they have no wya to deliver them to our shores, unlike n korea.

them: European leaders are against the war

me: The Reichstag was not attacked, the Grande Palace was not attacked, the Kremlin was not attacked, the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum was not attacked. AMERICA was attacked. And besaides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only 3 European nations are not willing to defend freedom. Teh entire rest of Europe is WITH the us.

the european leaders are (or at least were) 100% FOR the war against the people who attacked us. since iraq has never attacked us nor was responsible in the slightest for 9-11 (even the chicken hawks in the admin don't claim THAT) they are not for that, you need to separate the 2. while we are off on this fiasco, osama still runs free with the heat off him, i thought we were gonna smoke him out?? the rest of europe needs our $ because they are the former USSR states that are just now emerging and rebuilding and are afraid of our threats to pull the plug, therefore the govts claim they back us, tho with no tangible support. there are only 2 countries on earth where the majority of the peeps back the war, us and uk, and the uk is at 53% and falling fast. 91% of spainards are against it!!! btw: you forgot that sweden, norway, finland, austria, belarus, ireland, switzerland, greece and the ukraine are not WITH us either.

them: the french dont support the war

me: oh, did they surrender already?

the below was taken from a column maybe a month and a half ago, a very good column. it is alwyas easy to cut someone or some people down, a very non-intellectual pursuit, but trying to understand them and have compassion, well who gives a shit, right?? i urge you to read the entire column: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/6136732p-7092269c.html

George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives (not to mention civilians and the free french resistance) trying to stop Hitler.

On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.

it was very true, europe was fighting panzers with donkeys. i have read extensively on WWII in europe and know my facts here. nazi germany had by far the most modern and powerful military on earth. i have been particularly fascinated by how such a madman could come to power in a westernized democracy and i am sorry to tell you that many of the scare tactics used on the population then are being employed now. also keep in mind that french help in our own revolution was key and we would not be the USA today without them.

them: germany objects to this war

me: Germany objected to reagans 'attitude' towards the soviet union. of course they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

they have learned the lessons of WWII very well, unfortunately apparently we have not. they know very well the cost of aggression and pre-emptive strikes and where it leads.

them: belgians are against the war

me: i can live without waffles and ice cream

can't argue there. how do you drive a belgian crazy? put him in a round room and tell him there is a pomme frite in the corner. (an old french joke)

them:russia does not support the war

me: they are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory

on the contrary they are grateful to join the rest of the world. by the wya, did reagan use a pre-emptive strike and invade russia or did i miss that? i kinda thought his brilliant strategy was deterrence, containment, economic pressure and DIPLOMACY!!! NOT war. it worked then on the ussr, was working til 2 weeks ago in iraq, has worked prior and is the only wya to obtain a real peace. what this admin is doing is VERY different from what reagan did and i doubt he would follow the same path. the warhawks pulling bush's strings were also part of the reagan admin and he sat on them, thought they were too radical. they were also in bush I admin, when they brought up their proposed policies then and news of it leaked to the press GH immediately reined in cheney and wolfowicz and tore up their proposal in disgust..

them: polls show europeans are against this war

me: Polls show europeans believe thier freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with american blood, not fabulous wine and brie.

10 million europeans lost their lives in WWII, their economy and infrastructure were in ruins. our casualties of 150,000 in that conflict and little damage at home makes our payment light in comparison. the europeans KNOW what war is like first hand, unlike bush, cheney, wolfowicz, rumsfeld and the others who never fought in one. they KNOW it is intestine splattering, orphan making brains blown out brutal that has permanent after affects that are not always pretty and not to be undertaken except under circumstances of national defense.

them: we should build a coalition with our friends

me: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

i imagine that they are saying the same things about us. there's a few words not in bush's vocabulary (many of em actually!!) tact, diplomacy and compromise. do u know any successful relationship where there is not give and take on BOTH sides?? hey, france and germany and russia and the others sent troops to afghanastan and they are still there looking for the REAL bad guys who hit us. they also gave total support of their intelligence resources after 9-11, but that is now going to dry up.

them: what happens if we cant build a UN coalition?

me: who cares?

and that is what they will tell us that next time we ask for their help too. it is no wonder this bush cud not create a coalition like his pappy. from day one in office he has spat on all international pacts (including and first kyoto, close to my and every nature lovers heart)and in the security council he got what he gave after he and rumsfelt hurled invectives and insults at them. wars have begun in the past on less degrading insults.

them: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body

me: not as respected as the US MILITARY

nor as hated now worldwide. i didn't know the US MILITARY was a governing body even tho i have read the policy paper written by cheney, wolfowicz, rumsfeld, et al and published in 2000 (before 9-11) where they state that they WANT the us military to be a governing body. hey, we insisted on starting the un after WWII, it was our invention, our creation. russia decided to rule their sphere of influence thru harsh military dictatorship, we decided to rule ours thru democracy. and it was working superbly, democracy was spreading like wildfire with new countries joining the world community by the score without resorting to war. that globalization was a HUGE reason for the boom of the 90's. we have taken many steps backwards, it will be a long cold winter.

them: America has always waited till enemies attacked

me: now that oceans cant hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!! they were not our enemies, OSAMA is our enemy!!! the "tapes" presented as "evidence" also contained the message that osama thinks sadaam is satan. besides, iraq could not possibly attack the usa by any means. their missile with the longest range went 114 miles for Chrissakes, 21 miles in violation of the sanctions and 80 were destroyed by the inspectors!! and once all these other marginal countries have nuked up as our actions have prodded them to do, pre-emptive war with them will not be possible. that is why they are in such a hurry. isn't that a pleasant thought??? deterrance has worked for 50 years, who knows what hell this new policy will bring?

them: War will cost Billions!

me: how much is YOUR city worth?

my city is priceless, that is why i wish we were spending those billions on protecting it rather than feeding a group "macho" of neo-cons egos while at the same time lessening our security against terrorists and feeding them with recruits. imagine if we spent that on seeking out terrorists rather than regime change in a non-threatening country.

them: President Bush says he is willing to violate the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders

me:as soon as the ink dries on rescinding thatr idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? the line forms on the right

for sadaam, i agree. but that executive order was put in place in agreement with other nations of the world and they have reciprocal agreements. shud they tear theirs up as well??

them: tom daschle says pres. bush has a credibility gap

me: when was the last time we went to tom daschle for the truth????

when was the last time bush told the truth??? i cud sent u scads of articles pointing out his numerous bald faced lies. (we're going for a security council vote no matter what??, we will no longer be at thier mercy?? we will be a humble nation?? c'mon now) see this link: http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/iraqspresp.html

them: these problems didnt happen under clinton

me: Actually, they happened. But clinton ignored them. Now Bush will clean up his mess.

what exactly was that that happened again?? our grandchildren, maybe great grandchildren will be cleaning up THIS mess.

them: But clinton didnt start a war

me: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress

hey, the right wing spent 50 mill and 4 years digging up anything they cud find on this guy and that is all they cud come up with??? how i pray that they cud do the same thing on bush, he has quite a few skeletons himself. i wud rather our prez have his human frailities in his personal life rather than as a part of our nations policy putting lives and our national interest at risk in starting an unjust war and then lying as to the true reasons behind it. besides, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

them: bush senior should have taken out saddam in '91

me: that 1991 un resolution forbade a march on baghdad-remember?????

the resolution was to free kuwait, which was accomplished. further resolutions imposed the harshest, strictest sanctions and international scrutiny ever imposed upon a country. sadaam was denuded, his offensive military capabilities taken away for good. NOBODY, not even his neighbors considered him a threat in the very least now or in the perceivable future, but i guess that half a world away possessing the strongest military might in the world we did?

them: millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war

me: millions of iraquis are beggin us to start the war

i don't think so. that is either another lie by the administration or they have been mis-led by the iraqis in dc who are set on taking over and want the war. the iraqi peeps in general hate sadaam, but Goddamn it, their homeland is being attacked by a foreign invader and that is exactly how they view it. you know who IS happy we started this war??? none other than osama bin laden. his actions of 9-11 were intended to cause this sort of reaction so that his fundamentalist terrorist group and others like them would have a cause to rally around to fill their ranks with angry muslims and eventually overthrow the more moderate gov'ts in the region. and bush fell for the bait. there will be no end to this thru violence, it will just breed more violence as it has always done and always will do. i read 4 weeks ago that in the pentagon the catch phrase for this is the "first" war. that syria is next and then iran with permanent us military bases in all of them when we are done, that is how their script reads and it won't make us any friends.

them: thousands of innocents will be killed

me: thas a lot less than saddam is killing now

100,000 iraqis died as a result of the sanctions, which they hold against us. we encouraged a kurd and shite uprising to overthrow sadaam after GWI and then allowed him to fly his helicopters over the no fly zone and over our troops so that he could use chemical agents to repress the situation. no wonder the iraqi citizens don't trust us.(chemical agents we gave him to use against iran, btw, when they were the bad guys of choice in the early 80's) how many saudis have died at the hands of that royal fam who are bush buddies?? there are cruel dictatorships all over the world and unfortunately we back many of them as long as they go along with out policy. many of them are also in the current coalition of the willing, see above article.

them: protestors have genuine objections to the war

me: just like they did in WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Panama? The gulf War? Somalia? Haiti? Bosnia? Afghanistan?

personally i did not have qualms about any of the above cept maybe nam. there is a need for war sometimes and those were just causes. some protested those wars as well, such as the christian religious leaders and true believers who believe God does not like war. (did u know that bush refused an audience with the leader of his own church?)

them: people are coming from all over the world to act a human shields

me: hurry up before the bombs start dropping....

i agree, they are dopes and few in number.

them: this is about american imperialism

me: So which country do we own? Name our colonies? What nations send us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world

afganastan and kuwait amongst many others today maybe. in the past iran (that turned out nicely, huh?), the phillipines, south vietnam and many others. we have had a habit of helping and/or installing regimes and groups favorable to us that later turn against us, see iran, iraq and osama. again, our main and most successful policy of spreading our influence has always been thru diplomatic and mainly economic pressures, not occupation and control at the point of a gun. unfortunately, that policy is changing. many in the world would say that the westernization of third and second world economies is a form of imperialism but i disagree with that, i call it progress. wolfowicz prefers to call their new poilcy american hegemony, btw, tho others in the admin refer to it as pax-americana. honest to God. i cud send ya articles, not weird on line shit but ny times, philly enquirer, toronto star, etc. this link brings you to the american conservative magazine put out by pat buchanan, whom i agree with. the repub party (whom i have voted for) the conservative movement and the country have been hijacked by the neo-conservatives. this explains the empire question: http://www.amconmag.com/02_24_03/cover.html

Them: Whow would stand in our way? This is Blood for oil

me: the only bloood is the Iraqui people tortured, starve, and killed while saddam builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapo0ns...all financed with Iraqui oil.

HE HAS NO NUKES!!!! of that the un inspectors were nearly 100% certain!! they have detectors that can find the isotopes if they are within miles of where they may have been or passed and they detected nothing nowhere no time, and with world watching he never would have them. i cannot argue that he is a despicable evil guy but again, he is not alone in the world in that. iraqi oil also financed the reconstruction of kuwait, paid to US const corps with ties to haliburton. you can bet it will also be paid to these same companies to rebuild iraq. read the PNAC policy paper and you will see just how important it is to them to secure the flow of oil to the US, that is the first step in their strategy. if they have their hands on the nozzle, no westernized country will dare defy us if we can shut them off. that is their plan, honest.

them: this is a racist war

me: America happily endorses a multi cultural attitude towards anyone who dares take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed... we will hunt them down and kill them

and exactly what freedoms was sadaam taking away from or even threatening from you, me or anyone in this country again?? i must have missed that one too. on the contrary this administration is the most secretive in history, in the wake of 9-11 they passed several laws that deeply curtail our freedoms and rights and the patriot act II is next up, want unfettered access by the gov't to ur email and phone calls?? no checks and balances, no court orders needed, thank you. God forbid if you are an arab american in this country these days.

them: a Us led invasion of Iraq is a great recruting tool for terrorists

me: have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery while they enjoy their first taste of freedom

exactly as osama planned it out. there will not be an iraqi that did not lose a husband/son/daughter/wife/cousin/friend or many in this mess, the first war or the sanctions. they will view us as an occupying force, not as liberators. it is THEIR fucking country, THEIR home turf where they grew up, where their ancestors lived and we are trashing it and killing or causing the death of their loved ones. the only iraqis that won't hate us will be the ones in washington forming up the next government currently as a branch of the PNAC and they havn't lived there for decades. it is not just in iraq, all over the muslim world peeps are lining up to fight what they see as opression with the only weapons they have available, their bodies and their lives. this will be a royal mess for decades and it was all so unnecessary. btw: terrorists don't oppress their members, countries oppress their citizens.

them: an attack on iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize arab nations

me: destabilize the region? what stability? the sooner we topple these 14th century terrorist regimes the better

they are more likely to be toppled by fundamentalist muslims ala iran than us. again, part of osama's plan. these 14th century regimes are the ones that we back and are currently friendly to us despite public opinion of the masses. if these masses shout loud enuf the gov'ts will have to change their view on us or face revolution. wudn't it be safer for the US to just pull all our troops out of the area completely, including backing israel, and let them all just fight it out amongst themselves? take away all reasons for any of them to want to get back at us?? fuck em, why do we have to dictate the order of the region, let em flounder. oh yeah, i forgot, the oil. what other fucking reason do we have to be there?? we are not messing with civil wars and atrocities in africa or other places. we have 3% of the worlds reserves but are the biggest pig by far. iraq has 20% identified, second only to saudi arabia but it is said that the unfound reserves alone there could amount to twice as much as arabia.

them: Are we prepared for a multi billion dollar occupation?

me: Were we prepared to liberate europe and japan in 1945 South Korea in 1953? Grenada? ElSavador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love americans when we rescue them from tyranny. the price of freedom is never free.

the iraqi "people's" oil will pay for the occupation and reconstruction, you can bank it. i also question just how "free" the new iraq will be. will we allow free elections?? what if the majority want a fundamentalist islamic regime, are we gonna let that happen? the largest bloc in iraq are the shiites, the same as in iran.

them: polls show americans are more concerned about the threat from AlQaeda than from iraq

me: it is not a war against al qaeda, it is not a war against iraq...it is a war against terrorism...anywhere we find it. one nation at a time.

nations do NOT do terrorism, terrorist groups do. when a nation practices violence it is called an attack or a war, that is national terrorism. on 9-11 we had the unprecedented sympathy of the world and soon thereafter unprecented international cooperation in hunting down the criminals who did it and those like them. we had a true coalition in afghanastan and everyone shared their intelligence with us. US embassys worldwide were showered with flowers and notes of condolence and pledges to fight these bastards that did that to us. if you read the above link to the article i recommended you would heve seen the reaction in Paris. even fucking cuba was sympathetic. only this administration could have taken all that good will and in less than 2 years squandered it into next to nothing and made sadaam a hero and martyr in the eyes of a good chunk of the world. millions have marched worldwide against our policies and no international organization backs us. just as they have squandered our budget surplus which our grandkids will also have to pay for. the cooperation against terrorism is slowing and soon will be a trickle. these cells will soon fester and grow unabated in foreign lands.

them: american opinion is against the war

me: no, its not. the majority of americans want to fight now, not later...according to a recent poll!

i agree, that is what the polls show, something like 65% i think (tho b4 the war it was like 55% without the un backing.) however the polls also show that 42% of americans think that sadaam was directly responsible for 9-11 so if you subtract them the way i see it is that of the educated americans who do not live in trailers and know how to read there is a 35% to 23% majority against.



You know what? Screw these polls. We are in a war against terrorism. If you dont want to fight the ones who would murder you and your family in a heartbeat, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. FOREVER.

we WERE in a war against terrorism, the bush administration has changed that and we are no longer. we are no longer putting our vast resources towards terrorists but are instead invading a country that had never performed a terrorist act against us nor were they likely to unless we did what we did. i sooooo wish we were fighting the ones that would murder me and my family but instead we are fighting iraq while terrorism grows and gains supporters and strength because we have pissed off the rest of the world. we are letting our defenses down against the real threat in order to assure the USA will always be the lone superpower in control of the nozzle as is presented in the PNAC paper.

i did want u to know a lil more on my thoughts on the war. i am not anti-american or even so pacifist as to say war is never justified. the last gulf war i was really into, i never missed a swartzkoph or powell press conference, had the radio or tv on all day, dutifully put out my flag daily. the justification was clear, sadaam was a big bad bully that invaded and took over his smaller defenseless neighbor who was our friend. bush, sr. put together a worldwide coalition with only like 3 countries objecting. 29 countries sent military fighting forces and it had the full backing of the UN. we were clearly leading the good guys against the bad guys. unfortunately most of the world now sees us as the big bad bully invading a smaller nearly defenseless country, in this war there are like over 100 against or not participating in and 45 or so sorta backing tho only 3 have sent fighting forces.

i will stay right here, thank you. (maybe sri lanka or somewhere exotic tho some day) somebody has to fight the good fight and make sure we refocus on the proper enemy. it is those that want to fight iraq that are giving up the fight on terrorism, not the other wya around. the fundamental terrorist organizations are completely polar to sadaam and they hate each others guts, or at least they did before they found a common enemy. i consider myself a true patriot and would lay down my life for this country, but i am NOT a mindless cheerleader who does not even know the score. i pray for our troops and for a quick end to this crap. i pray i am wrong about my predictions but the knowledge i have gathered in my volumnous reading tells me i am not. only time will tell. in every case i respect your opinions and hope you do the same for mine. sure wish we cud debate it in person. no, i take that back, i'd rather talk bout more cheerful subjects if we ever get the limited chance rather than debate something neither of us has any control over.

i am not trying to change your mind on this issue and i doubt that i cud anywya. just voicing mine as you have voiced yours. if you are at all interested attached are some more links, i am not alone in my thinking. this is what the europeans have read and know to be the truth. i have also included a link to the PNAC website where they have their global policy paper published.

sorry bout the length of this but i am passionate about many things. if ya want this can end our debate cept for the i told ya so's years down the line by one of us. again, i pray it is you, but don't think it will be!!!


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

http://www.rense.com/general33/pearl.htm

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/5025024.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[populistmom]

1. I don't know if I could add much

However, I respect and admire you for doing it. I hope it made an impact on this person. :) It's very thought out and well-written.

[never cry wolf]

2. And very long

thanks for reading through it, probably doesn't belong in the lounge but it was my first real political comment written to anyone of any sort ever.

Unfortunately, my friend said she deleted it because she didn;t want to get into an argument, she was set in her beliefs at the time and I was hoping to resend with additional ammo now that at least SOME truth is coming out in the major media.

BTW: neither here nor there, my next post will be 1776.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. What a whining crybaby.

She deleted it because she didn't want to get into an argument, and she was set in her beliefs. She had no problem ramming HERS down YOUR throat, now did she?

[never cry wolf]

5. Keep in mind this was 3 weeks after the invasion

When something like 81% of the morans in the US backed this stupid adventure. That is why I want to return it now that there has been 9 months of perspective and my points have been pretty much proven true.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. Waitasec

I am proofreading/spellchecking the entire thing at this very moment. We do not want to spread it around only to get in response "ha ha you can't even spell 'would', you moran".

No offense. I understand you wrote it in a burst and had no time for linguistical niceties.

Give me half an hour.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Wow, that took longer than I thought.

This is something I received from a very close friend in early April, it was entitled "Snappy answers to all those pansy anti war people," and I can't ever remember being so motivated and pissed off!! I read it and inserted my responses (in bold), it took me about an hour at the time, I was motivated.

At the time it was yet 3 1/2 months until I discovered DU but 3 weeks after we invaded Iraq. I believe that for the most part, through independent news reading, I was pretty much on the money but since I have discovered DU there is much more I would have added knowing now what I have learned from DU.

I would like to add additional comments to each line and send back to my friend as well as others and was hoping for some help. I am much too tired tonight to do it alone, as it is a LOOOOONG email. Please, select one or two of the arguments (or more, if motivated as I was when I first read it) and add your thoughts and/or links to back them up. I am also interested in long time DUers opinions of my responses sans the benefit of the DU resource last April.

Thanks to all in advance, here it is:

I support our troops. I support the war effort. I am sick of people who don't. Every day you hear some shit from some pacifist democrat who thinks the war is WRONG! Well, a lot of things are WRONG with this world, quit your whining. So, my responses to their crap....

I support our troops and appreciate their efforts as well but do not support the war, I just wish they were not being put at risk unnecessarily. There is no logical reason for it and it will only make things worse at the cost of American and innocent civilian lives. Every day you hear crap from some right wing bully who wants to nuke the world, so they can just quit with their selfish insensitivity. Yeah, a lot of things are wrong with this world, why add to them??

them: Young Americans will die in battle.
me: Would you rather they die in skyscrapers?

No, I would rather that they all live. Making war against a country will not stop the terrorists who have no country, spending 75 billion on food and drugs in that part of the world or beefing up our first defense of intelligence and fire and police support would!

them: the US is taking unilateral action against Iraq
me: so far, it is a 90 member worldwide 'unilateral' coalition.

Actually it is 45, 10 of which don't want their names listed and a few of which found out they were supporting this from reading it in the newspapers. Only 3 countries have sent fighting troops and Australia is talking impeachment over their 2,000. Of this "coalition", most need the US in other areas for trade or foreign aid, which we have offered to many in abundance, or have big treaties pending that they do not want to risk. Most in the world have refused. Oooohhh we have Eritrea and the Marshall Islands on our side!!! Many also have a horrible human rights record of their own self. Here is a list: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/EC28Ak01.html

them: we are in a rush to war!
me: a 12 year rush?

3 weeks ago it was a choice of waiting 2 more months to see what the inspectors can find. If they found something and Saddam did not get rid of it, then the UN would approve use of force and we would have a REAL coalition. If they found and disarmed him, well that is what this is supposed to be about, right? There was absolutely no threat whatsoever of anything happening in the meantime with the strongest sanctions ever imposed upon a country and the microscope of the world watching. For Saddam to try to pull anything would be a death sentence. To chance the potential downside and spill American and innocent blood over two fucking months doesn't make any sense, unless you know that the reason the Administration didn't want that is because they didn't WANT the UN to disarm Iraq -- that would take away their pretext for invading. That is why they were in a hurry.

them: tough inspections can disarm Saddam without invading Iraq
me: 12 yrs of inspections have done us wonders so far

Saddam's military strength was a fraction of what it was during the last war, he has been effectively contained for 12 years. His nuclear program completely disbanded and at least 95% of his other non-conventional weapons are gone as well, he has done no act of aggression towards anyone in those 12 years and was a paper tiger. The inspections WERE working extremely well!!!!

them: we should let the inspectors finish their jobs
me: we did. They didn’t. WE WILL.

We did not, they asked for 2 more months, which they felt, was needed to finish the job. I DO believe that chem or bio agents will be found but I am not so sure they will have been there since BEFORE the war. The US does not want international observers along with their inspection teams.

them: there's no proof of weapons
me: we know they have em, we know they hide em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen’s shorts?

Then why didn't we share this info with the UN? Oh, we did you say?? Including the incredibly poorly forged documents about purchase of uranium from Nigeria (that the CIA told the Administration were fake before they were presented) and the Brit report that was plagiarized from a California student's paper? If we knew and didn't tell the Security Council, why not? If we did show them all the proof we have how come 9 of the 15 members didn't believe it was proof positive or that it posed so immediate a threat that war was necessary? why was the info not turned over to the inspectors so they could locate it??? Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm."

them: if we invade, saddam might use those weapons of mass destruction against us
me: i thought you said iraq didnt have them?

No, he MAY have some left but our invasion is the ONLY circumstance where he would use them. Our prior policy of deterrence and containment worked, he knew if he used them he would be in for retaliation and turned to dust. The CIA said that our invasion and backing him into a corner may make him use those weapons, btw, not a liberal pacifist and they made it public because the Administration ignored their warnings and they wanted to cover their asses.

them: but terrorists might attack if we invade iraq
me: oh, so if we dont attack iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

Terrorism will increase tenfold, maybe a hundredfold. A billion Muslims that didn't give us much of a passing thought now hate our guts. In addition, we are quickly losing the support of other countries in the real war on terrorism as well as directing FBI, CIA, NSA and other intelligence resources away from the real enemies, Osama et al. Not to mention the police and firemen who have been called up to serve. Of course the Bush budget cuts money to the states to pay for this front line of defense anyway so what the hell...

them: we shouldn’t go to war without a UN resolution
me: another resolution? What about the last 18 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or should we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia? (He didn’t go to the UN on Bosnia)

Well, maybe we should invade the record holder for violating UN resolutions and one of the leading human rights violators, Israel, who has 30 to their name including one from 1967 (a longevity record as well) for occupying a foreign country. And they would have dozens more if we didn't use our veto power in the Security Council. Or maybe one of the other 6 countries with more violations than Iraq. The Bosnia action was a true humane action and we had a real coalition that included all of NATO.

them: we dont have a real declaration for war
me: it's called joint congressional resolution number 114

Which is currently being challenged as unconstitutional, and is.

them: we are giving Turkey 20 billion dollars. we could use that money at home.
me: Ok, we will use that $ to strengthen our iraqui border with wyoming

Sure would pay for a lot of police, firefighters, FBI and CIA agents tho. They could provide a whole lot more help against terrorism than this shit.

them: if North Korea has nuclear weapons, why arent we invading them first?
me: Uh...hello...isnt that the point?

Isn't what the point?? North Korea yesterday said Iraq was stupid for submitting to inspections, look what it got them. NK will NEVER submit now and every country on the verge is hustling their buns to develop nukes so that they aren't the next Iraq. This war sure is making things safe, huh? By the way: Iraq has NO NUKES!!! Had no possibility of ever getting nukes under the unprecedented world scrutiny and even if they did they have no way to deliver them to our shores, unlike N. Korea.

them: European leaders are against the war
me: The Reichstag was not attacked, the Grande Palace was not attacked, the Kremlin was not attacked, the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum was not attacked. AMERICA was attacked. And besaides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only 3 European nations are not willing to defend freedom. The entire rest of Europe is WITH the US.

The European leaders are (or at least were) 100% FOR the war against the people who attacked us. Since Iraq has never attacked us nor was responsible in the slightest for 9-11 (even the chicken hawks in the Administration don't claim THAT) they are not for that, you need to separate the two. While we are off on this fiasco, Osama still runs free with the heat off him, I thought we were gonna smoke him out?? The rest of Europe needs our $ because they are the former USSR states that are just now emerging and rebuilding and are afraid of our threats to pull the plug, therefore their governments claim they back us, though with no tangible support. There are only 2 countries on Earth where the majority of the peeps back the war, US and UK, and the UK is at 53% and falling fast. 91% of Spaniards are against it!!! By the way, you forgot that Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Belarus, Ireland, Switzerland, Greece and Ukraine are not WITH us either.

them: the French don’t support the war
me: oh, did they surrender already?

The below was taken from a column maybe a month and a half ago, a very good column. It is always easy to cut someone or some people down, a very non-intellectual pursuit, but trying to understand them and have compassion, well who gives a shit, right?? I urge you to read the entire column:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/6136732p-7092269c.html

George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives (not to mention civilians and the free French Resistance) trying to stop Hitler.

On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.

It was very true; Europe was fighting panzers with donkeys. I have read extensively on WWII in Europe and know my facts here. Nazi Germany had by far the most modern and powerful military on Earth. I have been particularly fascinated by how such a madman could come to power in a westernized democracy and I am sorry to tell you that many of the scare tactics used on the population then are being employed now. Also keep in mind that French help in our own Revolution was key and we would not be an USA today without them.

them: Germany objects to this war
me: Germany objected to Reagan’s 'attitude' towards the soviet union. Of course they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

They have learned the lessons of WWII very well; unfortunately apparently we have not. They know very well the cost of aggression and pre-emptive strikes and where it leads.

them: Belgians are against the war
me: I can live without waffles and ice cream

Can't argue there. How do you drive a Belgian crazy? Put him in a round room and tell him there is a pomme frite in the corner. (An old French joke)

them: Russia does not support the war
me: they are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory

On the contrary, they are grateful to join the rest of the world. By the way, did Reagan use a pre-emptive strike and invade Russia or did I miss that? I kinda thought his brilliant strategy was deterrence, containment, economic pressure and DIPLOMACY!!! NOT war. It worked then on the USSR, was working till 2 weeks ago in Iraq, has worked prior and is the only way to obtain a real peace. What this admin is doing is VERY different from what Reagan did and I doubt he would follow the same path. The war hawks pulling Bush's strings were also part of the Reagan admin and he sat on them. Thought they were too radical. They were also in Bush I's admin, when they brought up their proposed policies then and news of it leaked to the press GH immediately reined in Cheney and Wolfowitz and tore up their proposal in disgust..

them: polls show Europeans are against this war
me: Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and brie.

10 million Europeans lost their lives in WWII, their economy and infrastructure were in ruins. Our casualties of 150,000 in that conflict and little damage at home makes our payment light in comparison. The Europeans KNOW what war is like first hand, unlike Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the others who never fought in one. They KNOW it is intestine splattering, orphan making, brains blown out brutally that has permanent aftereffects that are not always pretty and not to be undertaken except under circumstances of national defense.

them: we should build a coalition with our friends
me: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

I imagine that they are saying the same things about us. There are a few words not in Bush's vocabulary (many of them actually!!) -- tact, diplomacy and compromise. Do you know any successful relationship where there is not give and take on BOTH sides?? Hey, France and Germany and Russia and the others sent troops to Afghanistan and they are still there looking for the REAL bad guys who hit us. They also gave total support of their intelligence resources after 9-11, but that is now going to dry up.

them: what happens if we cant build a UN coalition?
me: who cares?

And that is what they will tell us that next time we ask for their help too. It is no wonder that Bush could not create a coalition like his pappy. From day one in office he has spat on all international pacts (including and first Kyoto, close to my and every nature lover's heart) and in the Security Council he got what he gave after he and Rumsfeld hurled invectives and insults at them. Wars have begun in the past on less degrading insults.

them: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body
me: not as respected as the US MILITARY

Nor as hated now worldwide. I didn't know the US MILITARY was a governing body even though I have read the policy paper written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al and published in 2000 (before 9-11) where they state that they WANT the US military to be a governing body. Hey, we insisted on starting the UN after WWII, It was our invention, our creation. Russia decided to rule their sphere of influence through harsh military dictatorship; we decided to rule ours through democracy. And it was working superbly; democracy was spreading like wildfire with new countries joining the world community by the score without resorting to war. That globalization was a HUGE reason for the boom of the 90's. We have taken many steps backwards. It will be a long cold winter.

them: America has always waited till enemies attacked
me: now that oceans cant hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!! They were not our enemies; OSAMA is our enemy!!! The "tapes" presented as "evidence" also contained the message that Osama thinks Saddam is Satan. Besides, Iraq could not possibly attack the USA by any means. Their missile with the longest range went 114 miles for Chrissakes, 21 miles in violation of the sanctions and 80 were destroyed by the inspectors!! And once all these other marginal countries have nuked up as our actions have prodded them to do, pre-emptive war with them will not be possible. That is why they are in such a hurry. Isn't that a pleasant thought??? Deterrence has worked for 50 years, who knows what hell this new policy will bring?

them: War will cost Billions!
me: how much is YOUR city worth?

My city is priceless, that is why I wish we were spending those billions on protecting it rather than feeding a group of "macho" neo-cons egos while at the same time lessening our security against terrorists and feeding them with recruits. Imagine if we spent that on seeking out terrorists rather than regime change in a non-threatening country.

them: President Bush says he is willing to violate the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders
me:as soon as the ink dries on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms on the right

For Saddam, I agree. But that executive order was put in place in agreement with other nations of the world and they have reciprocal agreements. Should they tear theirs up as well??

them: Tom Daschle says pres. bush has a credibility gap
me: when was the last time we went to Tom Daschle for the truth????

When was the last time Bush told the truth??? I cud send you scads of articles pointing out his numerous bald faced lies. (we're going for a Security Council vote no matter what??, we will no longer be at their mercy?? we will be a humble nation?? c'mon now) See this link: http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/iraqspresp.html

them: these problems didn’t happen under Clinton
me: Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now Bush will clean up his mess.

What exactly was that that happened again?? Our grandchildren, maybe great grandchildren will be cleaning up THIS mess.

them: But Clinton didn’t start a war
me: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress

Hey, the right wing spent 50 mill and 4 years digging up anything they could find on this guy and that is all they could come up with??? How I pray that they could do the same thing on Bush, he has quite a few skeletons himself. I would rather our prez have his human frailties in his personal life rather than as a part of our nations policy putting lives and our national interest at risk in starting an unjust war and then lying as to the true reasons behind it. Besides, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

them: bush senior should have taken out saddam in '91
me: that 1991 un resolution forbade a march on baghdad-remember?????

The resolution was to free Kuwait, which was accomplished. Further resolutions imposed the harshest, strictest sanctions and international scrutiny ever imposed upon a country. Saddam was denuded, his offensive military capabilities taken away for good. NOBODY, not even his neighbors considered him a threat in the very least now or in the perceivable future, but I guess that half a world away possessing the strongest military might in the world we did?

them: millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war
me: millions of iraquis are beggin us to start the war

I don't think so. That is either another lie by the Administration or they have been misled by the Iraqis in DC who are set on taking over and want the war. The Iraqi peeps in general hate Saddam, but Goddamn it, their homeland is being attacked by a foreign invader and that is exactly how they view it. You know who IS happy we started this war??? None other than Osama Bin Laden. His actions of 9-11 were intended to cause this sort of reaction so that his fundamentalist terrorist group and others like them would have a cause to rally around to fill their ranks with angry Muslims and eventually overthrow the more moderate gov'ts in the region. And Bush fell for the bait. There will be no end to this thru violence, it will just breed more violence as it has always done and always will do. I read 4 weeks ago that in the Pentagon the catch phrase for this is the "first" war. That Syria is next and then Iran with permanent US military bases in all of them when we are done, that is how their script reads and it won't make us any friends.

them: thousands of innocents will be killed
me: thas a lot less than saddam is killing now

100,000 Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions, which they hold against us. We encouraged a Kurd and Shiite uprising to overthrow Saddam after GWI and then allowed him to fly his helicopters over the no fly zone and over our troops so that he could use chemical agents to repress the situation. No wonder the Iraqi citizens don't trust us. (Chemical agents we gave him to use against Iran, btw, when they were the bad guys of choice in the early 80's) How many Saudis have died at the hands of that royal family who are bush buddies?? There are cruel dictatorships all over the world and unfortunately we back many of them as long as they go along with our policy. Many of them are also in the current coalition of the willing, see above article.

them: protestors have genuine objections to the war
me: just like they did in WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Panama? The Gulf War? Somalia? Haiti? Bosnia? Afghanistan?

Personally I did not have qualms about any of the above except maybe Vietnam. There is a need for war sometimes and those were just causes. Some protested those wars as well, such as the Christian religious leaders and true believers who believe God does not like war. (Did you know that Bush refused an audience with the leader of his own church?)

them: people are coming from all over the world to act a human shields
me: hurry up before the bombs start dropping....

I agree, they are dopes and few in number.

them: this is about American imperialism
me: So which country do we own? Name our colonies? What nations send us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world

Afghanistan and Kuwait amongst many others today maybe. In the past Iran (that turned out nicely, huh?), the Philippines, South Vietnam and many others. We have had a habit of helping and/or installing regimes and groups favorable to us that later turn against us -- see Iran, Iraq and Osama. Again, our main and most successful policy of spreading our influence has always been through diplomatic and mainly economic pressures, not occupation and control at the point of a gun.

Unfortunately, that policy is changing. Many in the world would say that the westernization of third and second world economies is a form of imperialism but I disagree with that, I call it progress. Wolfowitz prefers to call their new policy American hegemony, by the way, though others in the Administration refer to it as Pax Americana. Honest to God. I could send you articles, not weird online shit but NY Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, Toronto Star, etc. This link brings you to the American Conservative magazine put out by Pat Buchanan, whom I agree with. The Republican party (whom I have voted for), the conservative movement, and the country have been hijacked by the neo-conservatives. This explains the empire question: http://www.amconmag.com/02_24_03/cover.html

them: Who would stand in our way? This is Blood for oil
me: the only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starve, and killed while Saddam builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons...all financed with Iraqi oil.

HE HAS NO NUKES!!!! Of that the UN inspectors were nearly 100% certain!! They have detectors that can find the isotopes if they are within miles of where they may have been or passed and they detected nothing, nowhere, no time, and with the world watching he never would have them. I cannot argue that he is a despicable evil guy but again, he is not alone in the world in that. Iraqi oil also financed the reconstruction of Kuwait, paid to US construction corps with ties to Halliburton. You can bet it will also be paid to these same companies to rebuild Iraq. Read the PNAC policy paper and you will see just how important it is to them to secure the flow of oil to the US, that is the first step in their strategy.

If they have their hands on the nozzle, no westernized country will dare defy us if we can shut them off. That is their plan, honest.

them: this is a racist war
me: America happily endorses a multi cultural attitude towards anyone who dares take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed... we will hunt them down and kill them

And exactly what freedoms was Saddam taking away from or even threatening from you, me or anyone in this country again?? I must have missed that one too. On the contrary, this Administration is the most secretive in history, in the wake of 9-11 they passed several laws that deeply curtail our freedoms and rights and the Patriot Act II is next up, want unfettered access by the gov't to your email and phone calls?? No checks and balances, no court orders needed, thank you. God forbid if you are an Arab American in this country these days.

them: a US led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists
me: have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery while they enjoy their first taste of freedom

Exactly as Osama planned it out. There will not be an Iraqi that did not lose a husband/son/daughter/wife/cousin/friend or many in this mess, the first war or the sanctions. They will view us as an occupying force, not as liberators. It is THEIR fucking country, THEIR home turf where they grew up, where their ancestors lived and we are trashing it and killing or causing the death of their loved ones. The only Iraqis that won't hate us will be the ones in Washington forming up the next government currently as a branch of the PNAC and they haven't lived there for decades. It is not just in Iraq, all over the Muslim world peeps are lining up to fight what they see as oppression with the only weapons they have available, their bodies and their lives. This will be a royal mess for decades and it was all so unnecessary. By the way: terrorists don't oppress their members, countries oppress their citizens.

them: an attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations
me: destabilize the region? What stability? The sooner we topple these 14th century terrorist regimes the better

They are more likely to be toppled by fundamentalist Muslims ala Iran than us. Again, part of Osama's plan. These 14th century regimes are the ones that we back and are currently friendly to us despite public opinion of the masses. If these masses shout loud enough the gov'ts will have to change their view on us or face revolution. Wouldn't it be safer for the US to just pull all our troops out of the area completely, including backing Israel, and let them all just fight it out amongst themselves? Take away all reasons for any of them to want to get back at us?? Fuck em, why do we have to dictate the order of the region, let'em flounder. Oh yeah, I forgot, the oil. What other fucking reason do we have to be there??

We are not messing with civil wars and atrocities in Africa or other places. We have 3% of the world's reserves but are the biggest pig by far. Iraq has 20% identified, second only to Saudi Arabia but it is said that the unfound reserves alone there could amount to twice as much as Arabia.

them: Are we prepared for a multi billion dollar occupation?
me: Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945 South Korea in 1953? Granada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. the price of freedom is never free.

The Iraqi "people's" oil will pay for the occupation and reconstruction, you can bank it. I also question just how "free" the new Iraq will be. Will we allow free elections?? What if the majority wants a fundamentalist Islamic regime, are we gonna let that happen? The largest bloc in Iraq is the Shiites, the same as in Iran.

them: polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from Al Qaeda than from Iraq
me: it is not a war against Al Qaeda, it is not a war against Iraq...it is a war against terrorism...anywhere we find it. one nation at a time.

Nations do NOT do terrorism, terrorist groups do. When a nation practices violence it is called an attack or a war, which is national terrorism. On 9-11 we had the unprecedented sympathy of the world and soon thereafter unprecented international cooperation in hunting down the criminals who did it and those like them. We had a true coalition in Afghanistan and everyone shared their intelligence with us. US embassies worldwide were showered with flowers and notes of condolence and pledges to fight these bastards that did that to us. If you read the above link to the article I recommended you would have seen the reaction in Paris. Even fucking CUBA was sympathetic. Only this Administration could have taken all that good will and in less than 2 years squandered it into next to nothing and made Saddam a hero and martyr in the eyes of a good chunk of the world. Millions have marched worldwide against our policies and no international organization backs us. Just as they have squandered our budget surplus which our grandkids will also have to pay for. The cooperation against terrorism is slowing and soon will be a trickle. These cells will soon fester and grow unabated in foreign lands.

them: American opinion is against the war
me: no, its not. The majority of Americans want to fight now, not later...according to a recent poll!

I agree, that is what the polls show, something like 65% I think (though before the war it was like 55% without the UN backing.) However the polls also show that 42% of Americans think that Saddam was directly responsible for 9-11 so if you subtract them the way I see it is that of the educated Americans who do not live in trailers and know how to read there is a 35% to 23% majority against.

You know what? Screw these polls. We are in a war against terrorism. If you don’t want to fight the ones who would murder you and your family in a heartbeat, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. FOREVER.

We WERE in a war against terrorism, the Bush administration has changed that and we are no longer. We are no longer putting our vast resources towards terrorists but are instead invading a country that had never performed a terrorist act against us nor were they likely to unless we did what we did. I sooooo wish we were fighting the ones that would murder me and my family but instead we are fighting Iraq while terrorism grows and gains supporters and strength because we have pissed off the rest of the world. We are letting our defenses down against the real threat in order to assure the USA will always be the lone superpower in control of the nozzle as is presented in the PNAC paper.

I did want you to know a li'l more on my thoughts on the war. I am not anti-American or even so pacifist as to say war is never justified. The last gulf war I was really into, I never missed a Schwartzkopf or Powell press conference, had the radio or TV on all day, dutifully put out my flag daily. The justification was clear, Saddam was a big bad bully that invaded and took over his smaller defenseless neighbor who was our friend. Bush Sr. put together a worldwide coalition with only like 3 countries objecting. 29 countries sent military fighting forces and it had the full backing of the UN.

We were clearly leading the good guys against the bad guys. Unfortunately most of the world now sees us as the big bad bully invading a smaller nearly defenseless country, in this war there are like over 100 against or not participating in and 45 or so sorta backing though only 3 have sent fighting forces.

I will stay right here, thank you. (Maybe Sri Lanka or somewhere exotic though some day) Somebody has to fight the good fight and make sure we refocus on the proper enemy. It is those that want to fight Iraq that are giving up the fight on terrorism, not the other way around. The fundamentalist terrorist organizations are completely polar to Saddam and they hate each other’s guts, or at least they did before they found a common enemy. I consider myself a true patriot and would lay down my life for this country, but i am NOT a mindless cheerleader who does not even know the score. I pray for our troops and for a quick end to this crap. I pray I am wrong about my predictions but the knowledge I have gathered in my voluminous reading tells me I am not. Only time will tell. In every case i respect your opinions and hope you do the same for mine. Sure wish we could debate it in person. No, i take that back, I'd rather talk bout more cheerful subjects if we ever get the limited chance rather than debate something neither of us has any control over.

I am not trying to change your mind on this issue and I doubt that I could anyway. Just voicing mine as you have voiced yours. If you are at all interested attached are some more links, I am not alone in my thinking. This is what the Europeans have read and know to be the truth. I have also included a link to the PNAC website where they have their global policy paper published.

Sorry about the length of this but I am passionate about many things. If you want this can end our debate except for the I-told-ya-so's years down the line by one of us. Again, I pray it is you, but don't think it will be!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
http://www.rense.com/general33/pearl.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/5025024.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

(Edit: HTML error)

[never cry wolf]

8. Thanks alot. JCCyC!!

I really appreciate it. If anyone wants to add to my original comments and/or throw in links that too would be greatly appreciated.

[Kamika]

6. oh great.. damn you

You made me feel sick, and its so early :(


anyway .. I'm sure you were motivated but I wouldn't have bothered