Do Americans believe they didn't lose the Vietnam war?

[IRJ]

Just yesterday night I had a friend over and he brought some of his friends from Harvard who were up here for a party of some kind. We were just having a chill conversation when I made some sort of crack like "yeah, the same way you lost of the Vietnam war", after which the Americans got very defensive and said "we didn't lose, we just withdrew."

I must say, I was completely speechless at first, then jokingly said, "sure, you just withdrew" with a laugh and they started getting mad "we just withdrew,etc."

Is this a common belief in the US? Is this actually taught at school or just some kind of Republican conspiracy theory?

[xvikingx]

Republican conspiracy?....

As far as I know we lost. Everyone else I've talk with about the matter would most likely agree. I always hear the most interesting stories about Americans. Seems that all the Americans with very askewed views like to travel. Maybe they should have an IQ test for passports.

[nodachi]

The way I was taught was that it was not a loss and it was not a win. There were so many things going on at that time both in Vietnam and with all the issues going on concerning the war at home in the US, that it all gets mixed up. Win and loss gets very blurred through all that. History is not my strong point at all, but because of the cultural bias of the textbooks for the US, I doubt any conflict would be taught as a defeat unless we were clearly and definitively driven out of the country.

Pardon my vague response, high school history classes are not the top thing in my memory bank, although I know it is to my detriment today.

[IRJ]

Well those sound like reassuring responses so far. I'd hoped that this was just an isolated case.

[Old Warrior]

Those who served and faced the enemy do not believe it was a loss. Those who gauge the result on the temporary geopolitical resolution must concede it was a failure. Those who look at the westernization of Viet Nam, as it exists today and the fall of Communism throughout the world - aren't sure what to make of it.

[Ares2907]

Maybe this will help:
Excerpt from Red Dwarf:

Rimmer:
Perhaps you'd like to explain to me why it is that every major battle in history has been won by the side with the shortest haircuts?

Kryten:
Oh, surely not, sir!

Rimmer:
Think about it, why did the U.S. Cavalry beat the Indian nation? Short back and sides versus girly hippy locks. The Cavaliers and the Roundheads? One-nil to the pudding-basins. Vietnam: crew cuts both sides, no score draw.

[kendomushi]

Having served 15 years in the US forces, and in my school days, I have only seen it portrayed as a loss. That based on the fact that the communists took power and a supposedly democratic and friendly to US interests state was lost.
Why we lost, who is to blame, etc. is still debated, but it was a loss plain and simple.

[JSchmidt]

On the military side, the US was largely victorious...on the political side, though, it was a defeat, which caused the whole war to be lost.

Jakob

[lewis]

My study leans me towards JSchmidt's answer. Most major conflicts were victories for the US. Politically, it was a disaster. And judging from the vietnam vets that still beg from the stoplights of Denver, I'd say they didn't win anything.

[iwatekenshi]

Originally posted by lewis
My study leans me towards JSchmidt's answer. Most major conflicts were victories for the US. Politically, it was a disaster. And judging from the vietnam vets that still beg from the stoplights of Denver, I'd say they didn't win anything.

Uh oh if the above statement has some validity then Iraq is going in the same direction? Let's hope not! :confused:

[dorkusxmaximus]

I say we lost because if we didn't lose. Then why is Vietnam a communist country today?Hmm didn't we withdraw because of the protests that were going on??? Yeahh I remember now from reading history books-or was it talking to people? Because of the pressure from a lot of Americans, the government had no choice but to withdraw. Power to the people!

[JSchmidt]

" Power to the people!"

Almost, but not entirely. Some of it was also due to power-plays between the US and USSR. Add on top of that that the US was supporting a highly corrupt goverment, which wasn't especially popular, it was never going to be easy.

In Iraq, that's unlikely to happen. There's no opposing superpower supplying whatever resistance there is. There is perhaps a small danger that should the political backlash from lack of WMD's, combined with troops continually being engaged on a small scale, but if the UK/US pulls out within the next year, they will have gained nothing and the country will quickly turn into something worse than it was under Saddam.
I did not support the way the leadup to the war was conducted, but now that it's happened, they *have* to stay and sort it out.

Jakob

[dorkusxmaximus]

you just gave me something to say to the liberals at my school.

[JSchmidt]

Well, it can very well end up hurting the Republicans, if (and that's still an 'if', even if I lean in that direction), it turns out that Bush mislead about the reasons for going to war.
In terms of the UK, none of the opposing parties really have anything to offer at all, so it's more likely that if it goes that far there, Blair will be replaced by another Labour leader.
Both Bush and Blair are currently talking about how 'history will remember them for doing the right thing'..but I suspect history will also remember them doing it for the wrong reasons.

Jakob

[KhawMengLee]

Sounds like they were trying to copy Ole' Churchie's line but didn't have the balls to go all the way.

"History will be kind to me...I intend to write it!"

Maybe they should get all the civilians who lost relatives and loved ones to supposed "mistakes" made by coalition forces into a room with Bush and Blair. Lets see how they can justify the war then, eh?

************************************************

Back on topic; well economically its rediculous, wasn't it something like over 100,000USD per enemy casualty in Vietnam. I think its about the same here.

[LNGUYEN]

Here is a view from a Vietnamese person like myself.

The whole thing was very political. Men power? The American and South Vietnamese had enough Men power to run over the North 3 or 4 times, however, they were not allow to do so. Example, the North use Laos and Cambodia for their supply route (Hochiminh trail), the South Vietnamese proposed to invade Cambodia to stop the trail. They were ready to go (as my father was an officer already sitting on chopper), however, they were ordered to halt the operation. Before 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnamese president) didn't want American troops involved in Vietnam directly. What did they do? sending Henry Kissinger to organiza a Coup d' Tat, killed Ngo Dinh Diem and put on another president. Next The American troops landed on Danang. Many times during the war, many opportunities to crush on the North completely, but the top order always cease the operations like 1968 (Tet offensive), at that time, the North was so crumble that the South could push forward to the northend, but they were order to stop at the Parallel, why? At the end when the South didn't not have any ammunitions, no fuel to fly fighters, and the North breaking the agreement (Paris 1972), instead the American supply the allied and help them, but they decided to look away. According to the North, they were quite supprise to get an easy passage to Saigon, why?

[JSchmidt]

"Maybe they should get all the civilians who lost relatives and loved ones to supposed "mistakes" made by coalition forces into a room with Bush and Blair. Lets see how they can justify the war then, eh?"

Get real. I was very much againt the reasoning and method the US/UK used for going to war, but Saddam would more than like (and have done) killed just as many civilians himself.
I'm glad he's gone. I'm glad they removed him..but I am also pissed off with the way they went about it.

Jakob

[KhawMengLee]

Agreed. Saddam had to go but the method was wrong. Still, saying that Saddam would have done worse is no excuse...never compare yourself to the worse.

[Hongsermeier]

Lnguyen has it right. From a military outlook we won the major battles, but were stoped by the higher ups from finishing the job(sounds like Gulf war 1). Politicaly we got as ass beat. :cross_eye

[JSchmidt]

"Agreed. Saddam had to go but the method was wrong."

I'm not quite sure what you mean?..method as in war, or method as in the excuse for going to war?.

I'm not comparing to the worse as such..just pointing out that it's silly to claim that the Iraqi's would have been better off without the war.

Jakob

[samurai999]

The only question I have is what would've been the difference between political sanctions and the way we did it. Political sanctions haven't seemed to have been working. The only other way would've been to have waited until Saddam was dead. That would happen in another 10-15 years at the least? Saddam is still pretty healthy. (more healthy than most younger persons in the outreaches of Iraq anyways) They (the coalition) did sieze an Iraqi warehouse where UN food stuffs were stored. it seems as if Saddam used the food stuffs to feed his army and his close friends and family instead of his people..

Tim

[kendomushi]

That's the problem with Iraq, it had been going on for 12 years already and none of those opposed to war offered anything more than wait some more. How long is long enough? When and what do you do something about the situation? And if you do nothing, why did the UN do anything in the first place?

[JSchmidt]

"none of those opposed to war offered anything more than wait some more."

That's not entirely true. They seriously doubted the US/UKs claim that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' and in clear violation of Security Council resolutions...and on the same note, we are now told to 'wait some more' for WMD's to turn up, despite the US 'knew where they were' and had 'clear evidence' that Saddam possessed I don't know how many tons of this and that...and what has turned up?..a few ancient artillery shells capable of carrying chemical weapons.
The whole focus on the 'poor' iraqi's didnt happen until just before the war, when the propaganda machine changed gear.

Jakob

[kendomushi]

wait a minute Jakob, the security council itself said Iraq was in violation for failure to cooperate, thats why sanctions were and the no fly zones were still in place. The weapons inspectors claim about 10,000 gallons of anthrax and other weapons are unaccounted for. Iraq was without doubt in violation of their agreements with the UN. Do they have the WMD et al the US/UK claim? I don't know. But the fact remains that Iraq was in violation and the only option those opposed to action offered was to continue waiting and telling Saddam that he is a bad boy.

By the same token, was Iraq a clear and present danger? I don't know. Was the UN going to do anything about Iraq if they believed it was, probably not. The UN is headed the way of the League of Nations. It doesn't have to will to act on its own mandates instead relying on using the media to make statements about how terrible such and such or so and so is.

Did Iraq comply with and fulfill its obligations under its agreements with the UN? No.

Did Iraq possess WMD? I don't know.

Was Iraq/Saddam a clear and present danger? To Iraqis yes, to others, I'm not convinced.

[JSchmidt]

" The weapons inspectors claim about 10,000 gallons of anthrax and other weapons are unaccounted for."

And they key-word was 'unaccounted'...not that he has them.

"and the no fly zones were still in place"

Ah yes, the no fly-zones...even in the UK, they're still arguing whether they were legal or not...a very good case can be made for that the Northern no-fly zone certainly wasnt and that it stank of hypocracy. The Northern no-fly zone was created to 'protect' the Kurds, after the coalition after the first Gulf War didnt support them , as they hinted they would do, if they rose against Saddam...only problem was that the exact same Kurds that were fighting against Saddam were also fighting against Turkey, so when the US/UK weren't flying, Turkey would take to the air and bomb the exact same Kurds that the US/UK were 'protecting'.
As one of my RAF-friends put it:
"Tuesday was called 'bomb-the-kurds-day'. Eevry Tuesday,we would stand down and the Turks would fly into Iraq and bomb the Kurds".

" the security council itself said Iraq was in violation for failure to cooperate, thats why sanctions were (ed)...still in place".

Yes, but none of the sanctions sanctioned going to war. Furthermore the case for going to war (WMD's) appears to have been null and void.
Bush went in with his "With us or against us" shotugn diplomacy from the get-go and it backfired. Had he actually tried to build a case on plight of the Iraqi people, he might have been able to gather UN support for the war. There's very little doubt in my mind that the decision to go to war was taken before they even approached the UN. Whatever Blix turned up with was irrelevant and was even twisted to support the argument for the war....and *that* is my main issue with the whole thing. Not that they went to war, not that Saddam is gone, but the way they went about it.

Jakob

[samurai999]

Originally posted by JSchmidt
"none of those opposed to war offered anything more than wait some more."

That's not entirely true. They seriously doubted the US/UKs claim that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' and in clear violation of Security Council resolutions...and on the same note, we are now told to 'wait some more' for WMD's to turn up, despite the US 'knew where they were' and had 'clear evidence' that Saddam possessed I don't know how many tons of this and that...and what has turned up?..a few ancient artillery shells capable of carrying chemical weapons.
The whole focus on the 'poor' iraqi's didnt happen until just before the war, when the propaganda machine changed gear.

Jakob

I understand the doubts the opposition had and the discrepancies now, but what was their SOLUTION to the problem before the Iraq war? Thats my question. it seemed their solution was to go about doing more UN inspections. What kind of idiot dictator leaves evidence of WMD out in the open where inspectors can get to it, especially at that time? He knows inspectors are coming and the UN is watching him. He even destroyed a bunch of Al-Samoud 2 long range ballistic missiles to show the world that he is a "good man". His representatives agreed with the UN about random inspections, backtracked, balked and then suddenly agrees again later? It seems as if he was taking the UN as suckers. The UN inspections weren't really random either since they were tracked at almost every step by foreign news cameras. Saddam would be stupid not to watch those broadcasts to see where they were going. He does have satellite television.

Tim

[kendomushi]

Do you really think that after watching the Iraqi people suffer for 12 years under the combined weight of Saddam and UN sanctions that a coalition could have been formed to oust Saddam by force if needed based on the plight of those people? That is a very noble view but entirerly unrealistic.
Every nation acts in what its leaders believe is the countries and their own best self interest. It is extremely rare that any political entity gives a rats behind about any humanitarian cause unless it furthers their own agenda in some way.
The economic truth is that the world was getting quite used to Iraq as it stood under Saddam and with the Russians, French, and others making economic gestures towards them, there is no way a consensus based on the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people could have come into being in less than a decade. Given another few years of status quo and a Democratic president and I bet the US would have been kissing up to Saddam again as well.

[kendomushi]

I agree that war is a terrible thing.
I mourn for the loss of innocent life and disruption of daily living.
I was in the US forces in Europe during the gulf war.
I was involved with the treatment of Kurds after the war.
I wake up every day now expecting the terrible news that someone I know has been killed in Iraq.
War is terrible.
I wish President Bush had found another way.

But as Samurai999 says and I have asked many times, to those of you who curse the war, what other option besides "do nothing" would you offer?

[IRJ]

Maybe someone should start a new thread for all of this about Iraq? As it seems to have deviated from my original question.

However, to add my two cents, I would agree with kendomushi that getting rid of Saddam was much better than doing nothing. It's naive to think that weapons inspectors would have done anything about it.

The thing I don't like is how Bush went out about it in the worst way possible, doing a very poor job of selling the world on getting rid of Saddam.

[doubissu]

If you step back a little and look at the bigger picture, isn't it strange that for at least a hundred years, the US has always been involved in a war or invasion of some kind ? And there's always been a convenient evil in the world that the President had to save the world from (through direct instruction from God himself of course) : communism, terrorism, socialism, Castro, Arafat, Chavez, Allende,... what's next ?

Gee the US government really has other countries' peoples security and interest at heart... Or would that have to do with pure hypocrisy and economic interest ?

In my mind that hypocrisy, the way the good people of America are lied to and the civilians whose lives are messed up because of constant US intervention are much worst than a dictator here and there...

some here watch too much Fox news...

Eddy

[slidercrank]

In my mind that hypocrisy, the way the good people of America are lied to and the civilians whose lives are messed up because of constant US intervention are much worst than a dictator here and there...



First, your "big picture" left out Hitler, and I highly doubt that anyone who went through that period would agree with you that "their lives were messed up by the US and they would have been better off under Hitler."

Second, as someone who never has to deal with the threat of communism other than watching the TV news, you have no idea how many people in the world are grateful that the US has found it its business to stick up for the small guys against the communists. South Korea and South Vietnam were little guys that no one else in the world would have lifted a finger to help. Granted the US did a half job in the former case and an atrocious job in the latter, it did not change the fact the others stood by while the US fought (I'm not forgetting that many other UN nations contributed troops in both cases, but I'm convinced had the US not taken the lead, no one else would have contributed anything.)

Even in the present, no one else in the world really gives a damn about the problem of democratic Taiwan vis a vis the People's Republic of China. Despite the overwhelming economic prospect that the PRC offers, the US is standing by Taiwan and it's the only nation in the western world to do so. Its stance gives the US no political, economic and military advantages, but it still stands by Taiwan, the underdog in all senses of the world.

Anti-US is in vogue now, even in the US. And that's really too bad.

From someone who and whose family are grateful that the US has decided it is its business to be the world police and has made the world a better place to live in.

[doubissu]

First, your "big picture" left out Hitler, and I highly doubt that anyone who went through that period would agree with you that "their lives were messed up by the US and they would have been better off under Hitler."

Well I certainly won't suggest that... or that Hussain is a benefit to his country. All I'm saying is that surprisingly enough there's always a bad guy around, that the media and the foreign policy leaders focus on (instead of say, focusing on the problems at home). What if for once, they tried to solve the issues here instead of exporting american capitalism (oups, I meant freedom) ? Maybe then there would be less of what you call anti-US sentiments here and abroad ?

It's one thing to invade in order to rid a country of a problem (big-bad commies, taliban, hussain,...) but it takes even more balls to retire smoothly and not take the colonial route. So far, on the former, US has done an ok job, but failed miserably on the latter (in the international public opinion).

You don't know that "the world is a better place to live in" because "US has decided it is its business to be the world police". I bet the majority of people around the world would say the exact opposite.

Eddy

[KhawMengLee]

Even in the present, no one else in the world really gives a damn about the problem of democratic Taiwan vis a vis the People's Republic of China. Despite the overwhelming economic prospect that the PRC offers, the US is standing by Taiwan and it's the only nation in the western world to do so. Its stance gives the US no political, economic and military advantages, but it still stands by Taiwan, the underdog in all senses of the world.


You must be joking. Taiwan is the direct idealistic and political opposite of Taiwan. Why do you think the US supported South Korea and Japan? Especially after WWII with Japan. Definately not for the pure good of the nation...its the ole' fear of the domino effect on the spread of communist ideology.

Yes, PRC offers huge economic prospects but at the same time Beijing and Washington don't see eye to eye.

Taiwan having no political, economic and military advantage for the US? Jesus, its a bloody island right off the coast from China. The US has a free hand at landing troops and equipment and weapons there. No advantage?

Think of the cuban missle crisis where the ruskies parked a few thermo nuclear warheads off the coast of USA in Cuba and you would have some idea how Taiwan is an exceptionably scary thorn in one's side.

[slidercrank]

You don't know that "the world is a better place to live in" because "US has decided it is its business to be the world police". I bet the majority of people around the world would say the exact opposite.


I do know that the world has been a better place because of the US. It's not empty rhetorics; I can give you examples:

WW2: Removal of Nazis and Japanese militarists. As the result, Europe and East Asia achieved peace and unprecedented prosperity.

Cold War: The US safe-guarded the prosperous and democratic Europe that took so much blood to build against the Soviet threat. In the end, the people on the other side of the Iron Curtain decided to topple their own governments and joined the West. I'm sure they were grateful that the US stayed after WW2 and didn't return to its isolationist root.

Korean War: Defense of the South. Even though the present day South Korean kids think otherwise, no one can deny they have a better life now than their northern brethrens. South Koreans now build cell phones, PC's, cars and ships for the world. North Koreans eat tree barks for dinner. Is South Korea a better place to live now because of the US?

Vietnam: The US was courageous enough to get involved but not steady enough to stay. The result, boat people fled by the 10's of thousands. Communists ran amok in Cambodia and massacred millions. Indochina was a worse place because the US didn't stay and finish the job. My first college roommate fled Vietnam on a boat. I'm sure he wished he didn't have to take such a hazardous journey to the US to enjoy life's happiness; I'm sure he wished the US had stayed so that he could have enjoyed the same happiness in his own homeland.

Taiwan: Without the US protection, the Chinese communist madness of Great Leap Forwand, Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square Massacre would have propagated to that island. The people of Taiwan achieved first prosperisty and then democracy because of the US taking a stand that no one else in the world would.

Grenada, Panama and Kuwait: No first hand experience for me on these countries, but last I heard, no one in those countries are starving and oppressed. Can't say the same for North Koreans.

Iraq: Ongoing. History will judge it. But if the US track record is any guide, I think in the long run, it'll be a better place to live.

[slidercrank]

You must be joking. Taiwan is the direct idealistic and political opposite of Taiwan. Why do you think the US supported South Korea and Japan? Especially after WWII with Japan. Definately not for the pure good of the nation...its the ole' fear of the domino effect on the spread of communist ideology.

Yes, PRC offers huge economic prospects but at the same time Beijing and Washington don't see eye to eye.

Taiwan having no political, economic and military advantage for the US? Jesus, its a bloody island right off the coast from China. The US has a free hand at landing troops and equipment and weapons there. No advantage?

Think of the cuban missle crisis where the ruskies parked a few thermo nuclear warheads off the coast of USA in Cuba and you would have some idea how Taiwan is an exceptionably scary thorn in one's side.

You must be joking. Look at the size of the market of China vs. Taiwan: 1.3 billion people against 23 million people. No other country in the world that has a market-based economy will have anything to do politically with Taiwan. Only the US will. And it does that at the peril of losing shares of Chinese market to the Europeans who are more concerned about selling goods to Chinese than any ideological concerns.

And Taiwan to China is not Cuba to the US. If you think Taiwan poses an offensive threat to China's security, you are smoking something good. China has nuclear missiles. Taiwan doesn't, so right there your Cuban analogy ceases to apply. China also has more than 400 surface-to-surface missiles with conventional warheads aimed at Taiwan. The US has not allowed Taiwan to develop or acquire any surface-to-surface missile that can reach China (lest China be provoked!). And no, the US has no marines, no planes, no ships and no missiles based in Taiwan. And no one in Taiwan is even thinking about landing anything in China other than tourists.

Taiwan is an exceptionally scary thorn in one's side? In 1996, when Taiwan held its first direct and democratic Presidential election, China responded by staging missile exercise which involved firing a long range surface-to-surface missile from its shore, over Taiwan and then splashing it into the water off Taiwan. I know what I'm talking about; my parents lived and are still living under the path that missile took. Do explain to me how Taiwan threatens China or how Taiwan is eager to have the US "attack China" from Taiwan so Chinese missiles can rain down on their homes.

For someone from Malaysia, your view of East Asian affair is surprisingly ill-informed.

[LNGUYEN]

First, Vietnam

We invaded the Cambodia but we didn't kill million of people. They did the killing themselves, remember POL POT. They even invaded Vietnam first. Here was what Pol Pot said "If one Cambodia soldier killed 50 Vietnamese, we will finish Vietnam in no time" If you don't believe me, searching for its history. Of course, they created a convinient reason for Vietnam to invade Cambodia, but they killed 2.5 millions people of their own.

For Taiwan, if Taiwan was under Mainland control, do you think who else could keep the Com. China undercontrol. Right now, The US always back up the Taiwanese even though they don't allow the Taiwanese to develop weapon. the reason is they don't want to provoke China. However, backing up Taiwan, the US also send a message: Hey, I can land my troop right at your next door.

The thing is I beleive nobody will use his troop just for the purpose of good wills. If no national interest, no involvement, it is simple as that. Technically, Saddam was not under our control, the French and Russian had opportunity to the rich oil country like Iraq, and we couldn't do anything about that. Will we allow to let those countries out of our sights? Iraq also is unstable region which will effect Saudi and other region next to it and those regions are a direct national interest to the US.

[slidercrank]

However, backing up Taiwan, the US also send a message: Hey, I can land my troop right at your next door.


After the Korean War, you think the US is eager to have another land combat with China? Not to mention today's China is nuclear-armed. Your and KhawMengLee's impression that the US is doing what it's doing because it wants to be a military threat to China via Taiwan is the kind of misunderstanding that causes wars between nations. Taiwan wants nothing more than having a credible military deterrent so that terms won't be dictated to it by China, like the Czechs were by the Germans in Munich Accord. No one in the world would help Taiwan, except for the US. Why is the US doing it? Surprising to you as it might be, but it could be just that the US has a bit more of principles than other nations. No one in the US, and most of all, no one in Taiwan, wants to have US forces based in Taiwan so an offensive action could be launched on China and bring a full-scale war upon their own home. Ever since 6/25/1950 when the North Koreans crossed into South Korea, the US policy in the Taiwan Strait has always and very consistently been to prevent military conflict across the Taiwan Strait at all cost. It has leaned on Taiwan heavily so that nothing provocative can come from that quarter. It has no leverage on China other than to sell just enough defensive weapons to Taiwan, so that China would not attack across rashly. If you think otherwise, you need to be more articulate and explain where you got such an idea from.

[LNGUYEN]

Of course the American does not want to have another combat with the Chinese. However, they don't want the Chinese to spread their military influence too. If you think the Chinese never think about expand their teritory of influence, you are deadly wrong. History of thousand years proved that. Look at the Spatly islands now. Countries around it claim piece of it but the Chinese claim them all. They even landed their troops their and attacked other part of the islands. I said that the American doesn't want to provoke the Chinese so they limit Taiwan to develop weapons. However, they keep the Taiwan under their protection to send the message to the Chinese that in case if need, they are not affraid to face the Chinese again. If you live next to China like I was before moving to the US, you should know the Chinese better than you know yourself. The Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese, Malaysian, Indonesian, and Philipino, we all know the Chinese very well. The Chinese develop their military power not just for parade only, just like before in the history.

[cinderandsmoke]

To the Original Question about America's perception of the Vietnam War:


The Vietnam War is America's shame; we don't like to talk about it with Non-American's. We all know, whether we admit it or not that we Lost. We lost because politically we were shamed into pulling out and because (I am not sure of the exact numbers) over a 100,000 dead American soldiers just didn't sit well with the population (for other countries however, in a war this is just a drop in the bucket). Some people do feel that we won because the kill ratio was like 1 US Soldier : 13 Vietcong and if we went all out we could have leveled the entire country without breaking a sweat. Vietnam is a perfect example of what happens when the CIA runs wild.

Second, (Believe me when I say this) there is a large portion of the American population, both professional and amateurs, that do nothing but analyze, criticize and scrutinize every single thing that goes on in this country. Everything from what politician voted for what bill to whom he slept with. For the most part what Americans believe is as close to what really happened as possible, whether we will admit it to other Non-Americans is and individual issue. In a lot of countries around the world doing this could get you fired, alienated or killed. So, America police's itself just fine. It isn’t perfect but we are ahead of the curve.

Third, Every Goddam country in the world does what is in its best interest; it's just that America is so big it is hard for us to hide our own agendas. But like I said we are not alone in this unwritten policy EVERY country does it. Also, every country has evils that it does not want to talk about or will go so far as to deny it ever happened. Ex. The Japanese army killing 10 million Chinese. As far as I know the Japanese Gov't doesn't like to talk about this subject and at one point even went so far as to try and erase it from textbooks and so forth. Saddam gassing his own people, Hitler’s Germany killing 8 million Jews, England in India and Africa, Western Countries and the Opium wars in China.... etc. So if it is easy to name Americas numerous flaws (Slavery, Killing off most of the native population) it is because we point them out first in hopes of at least trying to fix it.

Finally, it really bothers me that American are so apologetic about being Americans because they are afraid of how other countries might see us. It doesn't matter what we do other countries will always hate America, or be overly critical of America its the curse of being on top. America gives god only knows how much aid to other countries on a yearly basis, in food, money, medical aid and Resources. Oh! is that country next to you bothering, well just pick up the phone and Dial 1-800-AMERICA-HELP and they'll come running (Well as long as it fits in with the current Administrations Agenda, not that their is anything wrong with that, you always have to cover your back cause no one else will) In the recent incident with Iraq we went to so much trouble to make sure that we only hit military targets (I am not saying we were always accurate). I don't think that any country has ever gone to such efforts in wartime with another country that has pissed them off for so long. And that is what most wars are about one country pissing off another country.


In General I appreciate most cultures/Countries and I think that we all have something that we can contribute to each other. There is no one ultimate society or country we are all just trying to get by on what we have and for the most part doing a really bad job at it. Who know maybe this will be more a more civilized world 500 hundred years from now.


Thanks for you time,


Cinder


P.S Even though it's my first class, I really dig Kendo

[Blue_Dragon]

After reading through the whole thread im finally glad some one just said it like it is:) WTG! cinder

As for america being to applogetic Your right there too! Like i give 2 crap what france thinks.


ITs only a Flesh wound!

[Sanjuro]

Slidercrank...you're Taiwanese? Me too...just moved to the US for college.

I just have to say that with the present Administration, it would be hard to say with confidence that Taiwan would be backed up with American military aid in the case of a Chinese invasion. While Bush has made it clear that he would support Taiwan "as far as it is necessary" in the case of Chinese aggression, those are only words. American aggression against China would involve the Russians, which would entail who knows how many chain reactions. Besides, the US already has a large portion of its troops committed to foreign soil for a signifcant part of the near future. In short, Taiwan is in more trouble than one would think...

just my opinion

[Fantasia]

My pair o' pennies.

1) America lost Vietnam. Our goal was a democratic country, and we did not achieve that goal. Was the only war (not the only conflicts of course, but the only full-fledged military action with a declaration of war) that we ever lost.

2) To respond to several of the more misguided among you:

"Maybe they should get all the civilians who lost relatives and loved ones to supposed "mistakes" made by coalition forces into a room with Bush and Blair. Lets see how they can justify the war then, eh?"

--Easily. You think if you rounded up families of the few French civiliams we killed accidentally while driving out the Germans in two world wars, they would complain? Or how about we put families of people Saddam tortured, raped, and killed in the same room and let all three groups talk it out?

That's not entirely true. They seriously doubted the US/UKs claim that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' and in clear violation of Security Council resolutions.

--The UN Security Council itself declared that Iraq was in violation of their 13 separate resolutions. And yet they wouldn't do anything about it. The UN is a paper tiger. Who's going to care about their resolutions if nobody will enforce them?

And they key-word was 'unaccounted'...not that he has them.

--See, under the Clinton administration, he did an amazing job of swinging the onus of "proof" to the UN. But read the original resolutions- it was IRAQ'S job to PROVE that they had destroyed their existing, documented weapons and dismantled the program to create them. He never provided that proof, and somehow it was decided that Saddam would be innocent until proven guilty of possessing things he shouldn't. Ask the 5,000 gassed Kurds about the onus of "proof" of Saddam's guilt.

If you step back a little and look at the bigger picture, isn't it strange that for at least a hundred years, the US has always been involved in a war or invasion of some kind ? And there's always been a convenient evil in the world that the President had to save the world from (through direct instruction from God himself of course) : communism, terrorism, socialism, Castro, Arafat, Chavez, Allende,... what's next ?

--So you're saying that there's been times in the world where evil and evil men and women simply didn't exist? Are we the world's police at the moment? Yes. Does the rest of the world want it that way? Believe it or not, yes, because then they don't have to do the job themselves. Of course people disagree with it, here in America as well as the rest of the world. But we have security forces in scores of countries, and those countries WANT us there.

--Later somebody commented on this same thing, making a snide comment about our imperial tendencies. Do you see America CONTROLLING any of these countries we have supposedly "invaded"? Do you call our liberation of France and other European countries in two world wars an INVASION? No quite the opposite. We liberate these countries and set up their governments, make sure things are running, and slowly leave, leaving military forces ONLY if the new countries still want them there. We took countries we not only liberated but countries that were our ENEMIES and turned them into some of the most economically and politically powerful countries in the world.

Look at North Korea and South Korea. In North Korea the culture was DEVASTATED by communist Russian rule. Tradional instruments, art, music, dance all forbidden under severe punishments. The economy was destroyed as well. Look at South Korea. Heavily western-influenced culture? Sure. But the traditional culture is STILL THERE. People act like we crammed our culture down other countries' throats, but that is just ignorant. Culture transfer is merely a by-product of free-market economy. If the PEOPLE of South Korea really didn't want Western culture in their country, it wouldn't have entered in any great force.

One last thought. I don't think I've EVER heard an American complain that European culture was the driving force behind ours.

[additions]

y'know.
i could've sworn that it was america that was supplying germany with nickel and rubber and otehr general materials for building weapons....

then after the lusitania got sunk in british waters, that germany had declared a war zone, they decided to join in the fight.

or have i gotten my wars mixed up?

[Shiro]

Anti-US is in vogue now, even in the US. And that's really too bad.

I wouldn't say anti-US, I would say anti-Bush

[Shiro]

After reading through the whole thread im finally glad some one just said it like it is:) WTG! cinder

As for america being to applogetic Your right there too! Like i give 2 crap what france thinks.


ITs only a Flesh wound!

America?! Appologetic?!!! In what parallel world do you live?!

You stormed Iraq without giving a damn about what the rest of the whole wide world thought! You might not be giving a damn about what france or Belgium think, but Iraq is nearly at Europe's doorstep, so we don't give a damn about what you think and we all hope to kiss your 'dear president' goodbye real soon.

Get rid of the guys who hi-jacked the white house and then we'll talk.

[samurai999]

Finally, it really bothers me that American are so apologetic about being Americans because they are afraid of how other countries might see us. It doesn't matter what we do other countries will always hate America, or be overly critical of America its the curse of being on top.

Damn Straight. I'd rather have Bush than Bill Clinton kissing ass any day.
Although it's one thing to hear others' opinions and integrate them in order to help us or help others, its another to totally say "yes sir, anything you say sir".

I will vote Bush again. First of all, he doesn't take BS. Secondly, he's willing to put forth a plan to put the US on Mars by axeing the ISS projects and the old, decrepid Shuttle Program (which Clinton screwed because he stripped NASAs funds). I was hoping and praying that somebody would take that bold step. Thirdly, maybe deep down inside I like him because all the liberals (there are quite a few) in the Bay Area loathe him and I am sick of watching them on TV.

My0.02(US),
Tim

[gsx1100s]

I'll give you an Australian perspective on things. Of course you lost , so did we! We were there as well and lost a significant amount of troops as well. No where near what you guys had to deal with but a death in a family is a loss full stop.
If you know anything about Australian history you will know that we were defeated at Gallipoli, during WW1.The Turks basically stopped our advance at the beaches at Gallipoli. they were awesome fighters and worthy of our respect.My Grandfather was a stretcher bearer at Gallipoli and fought in Europe as well.
I am about to head of to the war memorial in Victoria ,Australia to commemorate that sacrifice . It is ANZAC day in Australia ( ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) I will stand and be proud to honour both the death of many valiant Australians in those first waves on the shores at Gallipoli but also to honour the bravery of the Turkish that repulsed our attacks. If they kept us at bay they must have been bloody good soldiers . They were led by Attaturk so they must have been bloody good!
This loss was our "baptism of fire" as it became known. It created the legend of the "do or die" Aussie , and it all stemmed from a huge screw up and a defeat .
So whats the point?????
Who won or lost is irrelevant . the horror of war and its lessons,the brief glimpses of bravery and humanity are what should, and do , last.
thats all that should be discussed . it's not a football game

cheers michael

[litige]

Damn Straight. I'd rather have Bush than Bill Clinton kissing ass any day.
Although it's one thing to hear others' opinions and integrate them in order to help us or help others, its another to totally say "yes sir, anything you say sir".

I will vote Bush again. First of all, he doesn't take BS. Secondly, he's willing to put forth a plan to put the US on Mars by axeing the ISS projects and the old, decrepid Shuttle Program (which Clinton screwed because he stripped NASAs funds). I was hoping and praying that somebody would take that bold step. Thirdly, maybe deep down inside I like him because all the liberals (there are quite a few) in the Bay Area loathe him and I am sick of watching them on TV.

My0.02(US),
Tim

Bill clinton is not in the next vote list. So why bother with him?
Don't you see that bush doesn't care less about space?
he wants the votes.
vote for him go.
Let 300 billions go to the army rather the ones around that may be suffering.
Go and keep propragating war.

[litige]

Bill clinton is not in the next vote list. So why bother with him?
Don't you see that bush doesn't care less about space?
he wants the votes.
vote for him go.
Let 300 billions go to the army rather the ones around that may be suffering.
Go and keep propragating war.

Oups, propa...

[Bleda]

America?! Appologetic?!!! In what parallel world do you live?!

You stormed Iraq without giving a damn about what the rest of the whole wide world thought! You might not be giving a damn about what france or Belgium think, but Iraq is nearly at Europe's doorstep, so we don't give a damn about what you think and we all hope to kiss your 'dear president' goodbye real soon.

Get rid of the guys who hi-jacked the white house and then we'll talk.
Shiro you enjoy having an independent country? With friends like this perhaps we shouldn't have bothered.

[samurai999]

Bill clinton is not in the next vote list. So why bother with him?
Don't you see that bush doesn't care less about space?
he wants the votes.
vote for him go.
Let 300 billions go to the army rather the ones around that may be suffering.
Go and keep propragating war.


But the point is that Clinton is the one that screwed the aerospace field in America by further closing the budget spigot on Nasa. I also have come to the realization that no matter who is running for prez, he(or she?) is gonna try to appease everybody to get their vote. Clinton, Kerry, Bush(both of them), Gore, Reagan, Mondale, whoever. They ALL will say anything to get votes. But at least W seems want to go in the direction of furthering space exploration so thats why I'm voting for him. I don't really see anything close to that from Kerry. I talked to one guy at JPL (Nasas Jet Prop lab in Socal) at a career fair at Stanford and they have immediately opened up 150 positions for college grads since Bush announced those plans.

Plus, I am for enforcing gun laws and not creating newer more constricting ones. I have seen many of my friends who are law abiding gun owners who have suffered through the registration bit in California still get screwed because of some idiotic loophole that makes "normal guns" that they use for marksmanship tournaments into "assault weapons". Republicans are generally for the former while Dems are for the latter.

My 0.02$(US)
Tim

[Shiro]

Shiro you enjoy having an independent country? With friends like this perhaps we shouldn't have bothered.

Are you insinuating that you have attacked Iraq because you cared about our safety? That would have been a nice thought, but.....

1) your 'President' doesn't care about us.
2) we knew for sure you were lying about the dangers of Saddam being in power in Iraq.
3) the US unleashed religious fanatics, do you really think I feel safer now?

And where are those WMD's we were supposed to be afraid of? :p

OK, you saved our ass in World War II and I'm the first one to say we should be grateful about it. But don't forget the French helped you around 1776, so I was kinda hoping for a mutual friendship between the US and Europe, but no...... the US always want to show off about how good they are and how righteous they can be.
I have no confidence anymore in your government and I think it's a feeling that is shared by lots and lots of people around the world. Who is to blame? Some of your Presidents, no one else.

[Bleda]

Are you insinuating that you have attacked Iraq because you cared about our safety? That would have been a nice thought, but.....

1) your 'President' doesn't care about us.
2) we knew for sure you were lying about the dangers of Saddam being in power in Iraq.
3) the US unleashed religious fanatics, do you really think I feel safer now?
1) Your right he doesn't care about belgium, he cares about the USA and stopping people from threatening us.

2) Then you must not be living anywhere near the same planet that i live on if you think Saddam in power in Iraq was not dangerous lol. Saddam should have been killed in desert storm but the UN pulled the plug. 12 Years later the man was re-arming, was in the process of making new illicit trade agreements, and was still laughing in the UN's face.

3) Religious fanatics are fanatics with or with out the attack. If they were going to be dumb asses and blow themselves up they were going to do it anyways. Now instead of just hurling themselves at jews they hurl themselves at their own citizens.

The french helped us in 1776. They then joined us in a revolution of their own, followed by help from US in WWI, followed by saving their butts in WW2. How on earth does france helping us translate into "europe" helping the USA?

I say we return to our isolationist roots, pull out our rediculous foreign aid debt, call in all the money all the countries owe us and pay off our own debt and watch the world go to shit when the police dissapears and leaves em for the wolves.

[Shiro]

1) Your right he doesn't care about belgium, he cares about the USA and stopping people from threatening us.

2) Then you must not be living anywhere near the same planet that i live on if you think Saddam in power in Iraq was not dangerous lol. Saddam should have been killed in desert storm but the UN pulled the plug. 12 Years later the man was re-arming, was in the process of making new illicit trade agreements, and was still laughing in the UN's face.

3) Religious fanatics are fanatics with or with out the attack. If they were going to be dumb asses and blow themselves up they were going to do it anyways. Now instead of just hurling themselves at jews they hurl themselves at their own citizens.

The french helped us in 1776. They then joined us in a revolution of their own, followed by help from US in WWI, followed by saving their butts in WW2. How on earth does france helping us translate into "europe" helping the USA?

I say we return to our isolationist roots, pull out our rediculous foreign aid debt, call in all the money all the countries owe us and pay off our own debt and watch the world go to shit when the police dissapears and leaves em for the wolves.

1) Bushboy cares about his own pocket, not about you, fellow American Citizen.
2) Where on earth did I say Saddam should have been left alone? He was something you should keep an eye on, but it wasn't the worst one around there. Besides, why did the US finance him? :) Remember that picture with him shaking hands with Don Rumsfeld? Cute isn't it? :) It's like Bin Laden, it's true it's a real b*st*rd..... he didn't even say thank you for the US funding and the weapons......
You don't believe me? Try non biased media for a change.
3) Wrong again. Actually Bush managed to do something good in Iraq, he united enemy factions ..... against the US. They're fighting the US and people who colaborate. And eventually, when the US will leave, they might try to build a state like Afghanistan used to be with the Taliban.

How on earth does france helping us translate into "europe" helping the USA? France is one of the main driving forces behind the European Union. I like to talk about them helping you, because Americans like to hate them. Without France America might have been only a dream :).

Ok, now you will think that I'm a dumb America-hater, but I'm not. I wish that all the soldiers in Iraq come back safe. I don't blame them, they're doing their jobs. I'm blaming that 'patriotic' Administration that squats the White House. Bush's pocket is not something worth dying for.

[Bleda]

1) Bushboy cares about his own pocket, not about you, fellow American Citizen.
2) Where on earth did I say Saddam should have been left alone? He was something you should keep an eye on, but it wasn't the worst one around there. Besides, why did the US finance him? :) Remember that picture with him shaking hands with Don Rumsfeld? Cute isn't it? :) It's like Bin Laden, it's true it's a real b*st*rd..... he didn't even say thank you for the US funding and the weapons......
You don't believe me? Try non biased media for a change.
3) Wrong again. Actually Bush managed to do something good in Iraq, he united enemy factions ..... against the US. They're fighting the US and people who colaborate. And eventually, when the US will leave, they might try to build a state like Afghanistan used to be with the Taliban.

France is one of the main driving forces behind the European Union. I like to talk about them helping you, because Americans like to hate them. Without France America might have been only a dream :).

Ok, now you will think that I'm a dumb America-hater, but I'm not. I wish that all the soldiers in Iraq come back safe. I don't blame them, they're doing their jobs. I'm blaming that 'patriotic' Administration that squats the White House. Bush's pocket is not something worth dying for.
1) Please justify how liberating a nation puts money in bush's pocket this is the stupidest statement i have seen yet lol.

2) Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils during the iran era it was him or qaddaffi so you pick which one is worse. Bin Laden was funded to resist the russians attempt to absorb afghanistan. We helped them stop that just like we continued to supply free-french forces and anti-german forces in WWII.

3) If you think the war in iraq has done only that then your non-biased media is bull or your blinders are filtering everything else out that isn't anti-american. Try these on for size:
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Bet you didn't see much of that in your little anti-us newscasts.


As for france being a driving force behind the EU, i still don't see how THEY translate into the rest of europe. We owe a debt to france which we repayed numberous times and we owe the english for their mutual help and support. Just cause the rest of the countries are friends with france doesn't mean they get any type of reward.

BTW with out the US, europe would just be an old memory of some blonde haired blue eyed arian. Heck not even UK could have resisted german military power at that time w/o the US's support and supplies. And if you think americans hate france you should ask more french people what they think about the US.

[KhawMengLee]

1) Please justify how liberating a nation puts money in bush's pocket this is the stupidest statement i have seen yet lol.

2) Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils during the iran era it was him or qaddaffi so you pick which one is worse. Bin Laden was funded to resist the russians attempt to absorb afghanistan. We helped them stop that just like we continued to supply free-french forces and anti-german forces in WWII.

3) If you think the war in iraq has done only that then your non-biased media is bull or your blinders are filtering everything else out that isn't anti-american. Try these on for size:
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Bet you didn't see much of that in your little anti-us newscasts.


As for france being a driving force behind the EU, i still don't see how THEY translate into the rest of europe. We owe a debt to france which we repayed numberous times and we owe the english for their mutual help and support. Just cause the rest of the countries are friends with france doesn't mean they get any type of reward.

BTW with out the US, europe would just be an old memory of some blonde haired blue eyed arian. Heck not even UK could have resisted german military power at that time w/o the US's support and supplies. And if you think americans hate france you should ask more french people what they think about the US.

1) Bush and not to mention several of his staff have significant connections with several firms involved in rebuilding and the oil industry...hint hint.

2) Yes..he was. But it goes to show 2 wrongs don't make a right. What you reap is what you sow.

3)* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

Yup, funny how a whole battalion refused to fight in Fallujah. Even General Whatzisname Sanchez(US Commander in Iraq) said that 1/10 Iraqi soldiers are on the rebel side and that they are inefficient.

************************************************** ******

[KhawMengLee]

I say we return to our isolationist roots, pull out our rediculous foreign aid debt, call in all the money all the countries owe us and pay off our own debt and watch the world go to shit when the police dissapears and leaves em for the wolves.

Erm...you know the US owes more to overseas investors than what overseas investors owe to the US. If they pull out, your economy collapses.

[Shiro]

Exactly, KhawMengLee :)
Iraq is one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.... And almost all the members of the Bush administration have strong ties with Oil companies.
Dick Cheney and Haliburton for example....

2) Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils during the iran era it was him or qaddaffi so you pick which one is worse. Bin Laden was funded to resist the russians attempt to absorb afghanistan. We helped them stop that just like we continued to supply free-french forces and anti-german forces in WWII.

Ah yes, I shouldn't have questioned America's great experience when it comes to choosing and supporting dictators and terrorists... (Pinochet,
Shah, Ben Laden, Saddam, some kuwait dictator, .... ). But I remember having heard several times, the US supported both Iran and Iraq in their war against each other.


3) If you think the war in iraq has done only that then your non-biased media is bull or your blinders are filtering everything else out that isn't anti-american. Try these on for size:
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Bet you didn't see much of that in your little anti-us newscasts.


Off course all those things are compared to the period between the two gulf wars, but you should look at Iraq before the first Gulf war and the US imposed embargo..... The standard of life was fairly good there before 1991. (example: about 97% of the Iraqis were able to read and write back then). That embargo only hurted the people of Iraq not Saddam. It's the US' fault it was maintained for so long.
Granted, Saddam deserved that war but why did the US punish the people instead of Saddam himself? And why did the US encourage the chiites to revolt only to let them get slaughtered?


As for france being a driving force behind the EU, i still don't see how THEY translate into the rest of europe. We owe a debt to france which we repayed numberous times and we owe the english for their mutual help and support. Just cause the rest of the countries are friends with france doesn't mean they get any type of reward.

You don't seem to understand that there is some kind of European feeling around here, we are really a union. There may be differences between European countries but the way your Administration insulted France and Germany was taken as an insult by most of the other European countries.
And don't even think about mentioning the UK, Spain and Italy. Their governments acted entirely against the will of the large majority of the folks there (I'm talking about at least 85-90% of the people there) back before the war. Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi just did it because they wanted to kiss Bush's arse. Oh and for the Polish, they just wanted to buy American military stuff.
That's quite a coaltion, really....


BTW with out the US, europe would just be an old memory of some blonde haired blue eyed arian. Heck not even UK could have resisted german military power at that time w/o the US's support and supplies. And if you think americans hate france you should ask more french people what they think about the US.

I didn't forget that and I mentioned I was grateful for it in my earlier posts. But being grateful doesn't mean I will get down on my knees for the US for the rest of my days. Being grateful is different than being a Blair oops... puppy for the US. What you did in Iraq was wrong and I won't shut up because some guy waving a star spangled banner wit an overinflated ego tells me to. The french don't like being insulted and they have a big ego too, so it's nothing to be worried about.....

It's time to snap out of it, you're not necessarly right because you are American.

[KhawMengLee]

* Girls are allowed to attend school.
.

Erm...Iraq is not Afghanistan. Saddam was a Sunni...meaning religious wise they were moderate. The shiites are the one's who are usually fanatical, who now, thanks to Bush's "democracy" will probably come to power because they are in the majority.

Most Iraqi and Iranian women I've met are well educated. Then again they were all Sunni...ironically, the Iraqi women/girls who were not allowed to go to school were from the Shiite side.

[Bleda]

Shiro let me ask you exactly what we did wrong with the liberation of iraq. Was it that we ruined france's chances of getting in closer with the dictator than they already were, or just jealousy that we didn't wait for the UN to keep spitting out non-solutions?

As for the devistation of the gulf war that is every bit as much a UN fiasco as it is anyone elses and we're all in that one together.

What France did to the security counsel is just as big of an insult as anything we could have done. Saying they will opposed ANY US resolution just because they can (this was actually said by the french president) is childish and irresponsibility to the extreme.

Also khaw girls were not allowed at iraq public schools. If you want your child schooled you had to find some alternative method of doing it. Bush's profits off this are marginal at best and the companies appointed to work iraq are done by a counsel made of congressman completely seperate from bush including both republicans and democrats so i doubt they are saying hey lets give bush some extra money! If anything economic was gained/lost its France lost a cheap oil supply and the world gained a new source for its economy.

[litige]

To Bleda!

Tell me...what do you care about Irak?
What do you care about Saddam?
Tell me, why liberate the iraki people?
Why not liberate all the other ones that are SO MUCH MORE suffering in other places of the earth?
DO you liberate people by actually killing them?
Can you tell you are safe?
Are you really safe?
Are you more afraid of walking in the streets because of a plane might land on your head, or because you could get shot by one of the many many criminal in your country?
(Do you know all the facts about your president?
About it's operation? OF COURSE NOT!!!!)
Do you really think God is helping your nation to liberate the Iraki people?
Do you know that Bush is an Oil Baron?
Do you know that he doesn't care less about space?
Did you know that he thinks E.T.'s speak Etilian?
What do you think about the numbers of gun in your country, the number of people they kill, and their utility?
Do you know the annual sum of money that goes into the army?
And the the people in your country?
.................................................. .................................................. ....Hope you can aswer the questions.

[Bleda]

To Bleda!

Tell me...what do you care about Irak?
What do you care about Saddam?
Tell me, why liberate the iraki people?
Why not liberate all the other ones that are SO MUCH MORE suffering in other places of the earth?
DO you liberate people by actually killing them?
Can you tell you are safe?
Are you really safe?
Are you more afraid of walking in the streets because of a plane might land on your head, or because you could get shot by one of the many many criminal in your country?
(Do you know all the facts about your president?
About it's operation? OF COURSE NOT!!!!)
Do you really think God is helping your nation to liberate the Iraki people?
Do you know that Bush is an Oil Baron?
Do you know that he doesn't care less about space?
Did you know that he thinks E.T.'s speak Etilian?
What do you think about the numbers of gun in your country, the number of people they kill, and their utility?
Do you know the annual sum of money that goes into the army?
And the the people in your country?
.................................................. .................................................. ....Hope you can aswer the questions. -I care about iraq because its a nation with people in need much like cuba (i'm cuban btw).
-Saddam is a dictator that oppresses the freedom and terrorizes his people because he can. An evil man deserves to be punished.
-Liberating oppressed people and giving them a shot at a free like is something everyone deserves.
-I wish we could liberate everyone including my family in cuba but we can't so we have to start somewhere. Its stupid to expect a country to waste millions on liberating every little bitty country and ruin its own economy in the process. The US does more than its share of helping the oppressed in the world, obvious examples are all of the UN peacekeeping missions we participate in, Iraq, south korea, taiwan, and easter europe. Some good is better than no good imo.
-If the people are too blind to see what they are defending is oppression then the yes lethal force can be the only way. I'm no fool that thinks diplomacy works in all situations.
-Depends on your meaning of safe, i feel i am as safe as i need to be.
Same as above, i'm safe enough for it not to bother me, when my time is up not much i can do about it.

-First of all whats with this "many many" criminals thing lol, you make it sound like our streets are just filled with ruffians and murderers. I live in miami where we have one of the highest violent crime rates in the country and even then its not enough to make me worry about getting shot while i walk down the road. I feel more worried about large scale terrorizm than i do about general crime. Crime fluctuates but for the most part is decreasing each year and doesn't nearly kill as many people or have quite the devestating effect that large acts of terrorism have on morale and the well being of the nation as a whole.

-Yes i do feel God is helping us right now in our liberation of Iraq. If he was truely against us than a country with such religiously staunch people like iraq, we would not have such a large majority (over 85% of the population) of the population supporting us in their own homelands.

-Bush may be an oil baron but he has absolutely NO control over what companies are in iraq. It is all handled by a seperate committee consiting of both democrats and republicans. His personal gain from this affairs is inconcievably small from this affair just like every other oil mogul in the world. Infact most oil exporting countries have shown a decrease in sales since iraq began pumping oil. Supply and demand plain and simple. That would be like saying that since The owner of eguchi is a member of the IKF then he must be directly influencing and corrupting IKF decisions. Its a rediculous claim by any stretch of the imagination.

-He cares more about space than Kerry or clinton and he has shown this by increasing nasa funding and putting money into the space program. I would like to see more money into nasa but atleast he didn't cut its funding like Clinton. If he didn't care about space he woulda cut the budget even more for them and force even less space research.

-If he doesn't speak etilian then what does he speak since you are obviously such an expert on a scifi figure? Its a fake language i could call it etiliese and i would still be right.

-Gun numbers are difficult to find due to military weapons, hand guns, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, illicit, unregistered, smuggled weapons etc. Guns in the year accounted for 9240 homocides total, less than 4 per 100,000 people. Guns are used for sport, hunting, sport, self-defense, military, security, etc. If you are asking if i am worried about guns and their illegality, no i fully support guns and allowing citizens to own them. Pulling guns now out of legitimate people's hands would just leave them in the bad guys hands. If guns would have never existed then i can see outlawing them but too late now. Besides its nore more irresponsibility than letting people drive a car or practice iai.

-Current military funding (upkeep, construction, research and developement, and the cost of funding the army in iraq and bases around the world) accounts for 399.1 billion dollars a year. This number is down from the cold war era.

-I am not sure what you mean by the people in my country but if you are asking if we support the president and the war in iraq then yes, the majority does support the presidents decision and the war in Iraq. Bush's approval rating going into this last year of his 1st term was higher than any previous president's approval rating since Roosevelt in WW2.

[samurai999]

To Bleda!

Do you know that he doesn't care less about space?

What do you think about the numbers of gun in your country, the number of people they kill, and their utility?

.................................................. .................................................. ....Hope you can aswer the questions.

I don't like politics, but these two issues hit home so I'm gonna have address some issues here.

If Bush doesn't care about space, then Kerry will probably axe NASA in favor of some social security or the "lets tax all of the upper crust" budget proposal. I wouldn't mind if Bill Gates got taxed up the wazoo, but I'm afraid that the upper-middle and maybe the whole middle class will get the brunt of this as well in light of our current budget. The Dems are generally like this. Tax now, ask questions later. But back to space, at least Bush wants to go pushing forward. I haven't heard ONE peep out of Kerry. I for one don't want to see the human race stuck on one planet. We need to become explorers again. It sorta gives the human race a focus. Sort of a "this is where we need to go next as a team". Look at what is happening in the world. Religious cults and fanaticism, wars, crazy dictators, political bickering, fights in various sovereign govts, etc. Dont' know about you but if I stayed cooped up in the same place for too long, I'd go crazy too.

Let me tell you that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is the most cliched and therefore the most IGNORED statement describing the situation on guns. I like guns. But I am not this gun toting "outlaw cowboy" who rides through the wild wild west shooting anything that lives. I usually use guns to teach me hand-eye coordination, patience, to hunt, and to have fun in general. The Democrats generally head in a direction of "lets restrict guns" all together by reintroducing more and more laws. Republicans go for enforcing the law. Let me remind you that guns are inadamant (sp?) objects that need a mind to direct the bullet inside. If the mind is that of a killer, then that bullet will kill. If the mind is of a law abiding citizen who uses guns properly and RESPONSIBLY, then no. Japan has a no-gun policy and they still get guns from the black market in other areas of Asia and Russia. Britain has a no-gun policy and they still get stuff off the black market? Remember the man in Britain who went on a shooting rampage in the school yard a while back? The law didn't really help prevent that, did it? I can go on and on about this stuff, but the point is more gun laws hurt the responsible, law abiding citizen more than the criminal.

Tim

[Shiro]

Bleda, look at this: http://www.internationalist.org/rumsfeldsaddamwww.jpg

The US funded and supported Saddam. Besides, the Liberation of Iraq was an argument Powell and Rumsfeld used only after they realized they wouldn't have a lot of allies with the WMD argument.

Where are those WMD's? NOWHERE, even American propagandists didn't mention them after Baghdad fell.
Besides, why is your government asking the UN to clean up the mess it made in Iraq now? I thought the US didn't think the UN could do a good job........

And are you forgetting the US are hiring people that worked under Saddam now? Isn't that a sign of weakness?

I am not seeking out Anti-American media.... EVERY single media I come accross talks about it like that!

About the gun issue:
I agree on the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but I would make sure people can't get guns that easily.....
Ok, you can still get guns on the black market in Europe, but look at the numbers of people killed by guns in the US and compare it the the total of all the European countries.....

[Shiro]

And why aren't you answering some of my statements? Mainly those where I mention the US government sponsored dictators and terrorists.

[KhawMengLee]

And why aren't you answering some of my statements? Mainly those where I mention the US government sponsored dictators and terrorists.

It's the ole' tactic of answering to a mistake with distraction. e.g. Mr Bush I thought we went to war for WMD's? Yes, but Saddam is a terrible man who murdered thousands of innocent iraqis.

[dennis]

Blede, do you honestly believe that this war on Iraq was justified? I will give you that Saddam is an evil SOB, but who do you think trained him to use the chemical weapons which he has used to kill countless Kurds and other Iraqis (thats right it was us the USA and by the way Osama Bin Laden also received his education here and was outfitted with pretty much all the weapons he has by the USA when the Russians invaded Iraq during the 80's). What we did was a completely unjustified preemptive attack (which the justification of turned out to be a complete lie) whose likes have not been seen since Pearl Harbor (thats right this war has completely justified Pearl Harbor like the Patriot Act legalized watergate) and this action has set a dangerous precedent that our precedent can declare war on a country simply by indicating a possible threat that they "may" have weapons of mass destruction and they "may" use them against us. The argument after the fact has been that it was to liberate the Iraqi people but 1. this does not look like liberation we are simply occupying a land where we have created anarchy 2. The UN has outlawed the Assasination of world leaders (i know he wasnt assasinated but it is part of the same act as the second part) and the overthrowing of foreign governments so why isnt the USA on trial for war crimes? 3. to believe that democracy can be arrived at through a foreign invasion of a country is quite naive 4. the liberation of the Iraqi people was never once mentioned before the war while they still had us believing in the weapons of mass destruction. This whole war on terrorism has turned into nothing more than a McCarthy style communist witch hunt only this time it is "terrorists" we are after. Now dont take this to mean that I sympathize with terrorists I simply find George W. Bush's exploitation of a National Tragedy for his own personal motive absolutely disgusting and I find it abhorable that the voting population of this once great country (I am only 15 and therefore cannot yet vote) is allowing this moron for lack of a better term to strip us of our rights and force us to live in constant fear as in the Cold War era. Well I shall end this post here since it is getting quite lengthy and most people wont read something this long, but if any of you think you have a response to this feel free to respond and I would be glad to refute it.

[dennis]

Oh and by the way, I realize Bush will get reelected and that approval rating is incredibly ridiculous (and the americans are known to have an unwavering support of their president during wartime sadly enough) b/c the majority of americans i will be the first to say are completely ignorant of world affairs and politics. As long as we can fill up our SUV's and we can live our luxurious lifestyle then we never question our leaders which is a sad fact because dissent is what this country was built on and with the new public sentiment the ignorance of it is truely reminiscent of the Cold War I am near expecting to be black listed for this post b/c now if you speak against the war and american policy then you are automatically "on the side of the terrorists". I will leave you to think on the words of the great Mark Twain "Patriotism is loving your country at all times, and your government when they deserve it."

[Bleda]

Shiro you still didn't answer the question of what the US did wrong. Iraq was in clear violation of 13 UN sanctions, it had thousands of tons of chemicals unaccounted for as stated by the UN and was sooner or later going to habve to be dealt with. The burden of proof was on saddam to show he had destroyed all his chemicals, he couldn't so one has to assume he has them. The assumption went sour but it was the only assumption that could be made at that time. This is all the justification that was needed for this war. Saddam was in clear violation, had been threatened time and time again and still refused to show any proof of compliance so we attacked. Its no different than a junkie who has to report to his parole officer and never does it making up excuses. The cops are coming after him one way or another.

Shiro go and look at history during those times and see who you would have supported. The US does not assassinate candidates so it has to go with who is available at the time. A great example of this is cuba. Batista was a dictator, Castro came with the revolution, the US supported batista since Castro was the greater of 2 evils. What were they supposed to do kill both people instead?

Osama was trained not to be a terrorist but to fight off the invading russian army that was trying to assimilate afghanistan during the cold war. He was the military leader at that time of afghanistan so who were we supposed to support, akhbar the camel jockey?

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565237/Hussein_Saddam.html (httphttp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565237/Hussein_Saddam.html)

Read that statement on saddam, particularly the part about the 70's where he acted as a peace keaper in the middle east, built schools, universities, hospitals to better his peoples lives. He was not always the dirty scum bag, (or atleast he kept it hidden) but at one point was actually doing pretty darn well for his country. The US supports good leaders but unfortunately we aren't fortune tellers so we couldn't see this coming.

I love how you say i ignored this part of your argument when in fact i said the same thing before just in a more concise way. Of course you seem to ignore that and instead ignore MY question as to what exactly the US did wrong with attacking iraq.

[Bleda]

Oh and dennis just so you know unlike pearl harbor saddam was already targeted since desert storm 1 (you would have been around 3 at the time) and under strict UN sanctions. The US attacked because it had enough of Saddams shennanigans and inability to prove that he had destroyed his WMD.

If you know your enemy has a gun and he says "I got rid of it" so you ask to frisk him and make sure and he says "Okay but you can only touch here, here, and here. Please ignore what i have hidden everywhere else" what is the only assumption that can be made?

[Bleda]

It's the ole' tactic of answering to a mistake with distraction. e.g. Mr Bush I thought we went to war for WMD's? Yes, but Saddam is a terrible man who murdered thousands of innocent iraqis.
Khaw the statement i said to dennis has the same application to you aswell. We went because of the UN violations, the biggest that he had WMD since he was unable to show that he had destroyed the WMD. BTW incase you don't know the burden of proof in this case was placed squarely on saddam by the UN back after desert storm. He was considered guilty until he proved himself innocent, hence the US and the coalition made the clear assumption. God only knows where the 5,000 tons of anthrax and other chemical weapons that saddam can't quite tell where they are anymore went.

[samurai999]

About the gun issue:
I agree on the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but I would make sure people can't get guns that easily.....


The last part of that sentence is saying something almost exactly the same as "lets introduce more restricting laws". If not, that type of statement can be mis-interpreted to mean "lets introduce new laws". If you mean lets prevent criminals and irresponsible people from getting guns by enforcing the current laws, then sure. But the point is laws don't totally prevent criminals from getting guns. In some instances, the rate of crime actually goes up. Why is this? They can go to foreign countries such as Mexico, Hong Kong, etc and smuggle them back here. Plus, the criminals know in this instance that people don't have guns so it is easier to commit crimes against them. If you were a criminal with a gun trying to rob a store or commit a murder, would you do this against a gun owner or a person who doesn't own a gun? This is what Dem law makers still don't seem to understand IMHO.

I eventually want a 30 cal bolt action rifle. If the Dems get their way, because of an idiotic few, eventually ALL guns including assault weapons might eventually be banned.

My 0.02$(US)
Tim

[samurai999]

As for the invasion, I believe that if Iraq wasn't so wishy-washy in its response to the US about their WMDs the US might have not gone in. Iraqs foreign minister (AKA puppet) kept saying that they won't send information, they refuse to do anything unless the UN did something, and that they refuse to listen to the UN. Confusing, but that is how confusing their responses were.

Finally, when the "drop dead" date was upon them, they said "we want more time". This always sends a signal to other people that something is up. Did Iraqs gov't (timearchy) understand that? They finally sent the information, but it was interpreted as nonsense. The communication was so bad that it convinced the US govt that they were hiding something. It seemed as they were putting on a show for the UN while doing something else under the table.

Tim

[Shiro]

Shiro you still didn't answer the question of what the US did wrong. Iraq was in clear violation of 13 UN sanctions, it had thousands of tons of chemicals unaccounted for as stated by the UN and was sooner or later going to habve to be dealt with. The burden of proof was on saddam to show he had destroyed all his chemicals, he couldn't so one has to assume he has them. The assumption went sour but it was the only assumption that could be made at that time. This is all the justification that was needed for this war. Saddam was in clear violation, had been threatened time and time again and still refused to show any proof of compliance so we attacked. Its no different than a junkie who has to report to his parole officer and never does it making up excuses. The cops are coming after him one way or another.

Isn't it clear enough? The US started a war based on lies to gain influence over one of the world's biggest Oil reserves. He used 9/11 and terrorism as an excuse to go in. Now you'll probably aske me why the US cleaned up Afghanistan too, huh? Well that's because Afghanistan is a good place to build petroleum pipelines. President Karzai used to work for Enron too..... Coincidence?
The taliban where just an obstacle bewteen Bushboy and the oil business there, so he eliminated them. Granted, eliminating the taliban was a good job, but Bush probably didn't do it to avenge the 9/11 victims.
Isn't that enough reasons to hate the Bush administration?


Shiro go and look at history during those times and see who you would have supported. The US does not assassinate candidates so it has to go with who is available at the time. A great example of this is cuba. Batista was a dictator, Castro came with the revolution, the US supported batista since Castro was the greater of 2 evils. What were they supposed to do kill both people instead?

No no, the only thing I would have wanted you to do was not killing the guy the people in that country voted for..... :D I won't comment about Cuba since I don't think I know that much of it, though.


Osama was trained not to be a terrorist but to fight off the invading russian army that was trying to assimilate afghanistan during the cold war. He was the military leader at that time of afghanistan so who were we supposed to support, akhbar the camel jockey?


Ever heard of Massoud? He was fighting the Russians and fought the Taliban after that. He was for the creation of a secular democratic Afghanistan. The US could have checked before throwing with cash and weapons...... Try to look things up about Massoud instead of telling me things about Saddam I already know.....


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565237/Hussein_Saddam.html

Read that statement on saddam, particularly the part about the 70's where he acted as a peace keaper in the middle east, built schools, universities, hospitals to better his peoples lives. He was not always the dirty scum bag, (or atleast he kept it hidden) but at one point was actually doing pretty darn well for his country. The US supports good leaders but unfortunately we aren't fortune tellers so we couldn't see this coming.


Ok, then why did you give weapons to him AND the country he was fighting? (Iran - Iraq, you know....)


I love how you say i ignored this part of your argument when in fact i said the same thing before just in a more concise way. Of course you seem to ignore that and instead ignore MY question as to what exactly the US did wrong with attacking iraq.

When did I do that? The only thing you said about Saddam until now was "boohoo he's bad, his people suffer ONLY because of him.....".....

One more time........ Wrong things the Bush Adminstration did:
- They attacked a country based on lies and assumptions, ignoring international law.
- They forgot that Saddam was what he was thanks to the US.
- The Bush Administration ignored and minimized serious threats about an imminent attack in the US, so they have a party of responsability in 9/11.
- The US supported dictators and terrorists throghout the 20th century.
- The Bush Administration abused the tragedy of 9/11 to achieve things that are probably very profitable for them.
- The Bush Administration didn't really help the 9/11 commission by refusing to declassify documents (even documents of the Clinton Administration, wich makes me think they already knew something about it) and making sure no member of the administration was to appear before the commission (wich eventually happened when Rice testified under a huge pressure from the public opinion). Ever wondered why most families of victims of 9/11 were pissed off at the Adminitration?

And the list goes on and on, but those things aren't even related to the Iraq crisis, like the Kyoto protocol and things like that.

I doubt there is anything you can say that will change my mind. All the things I mention here are things I heard/read/saw several times from various sources. You should try non-american media for a change. Did I check American media? Yes I did.

[Shiro]

About guns, yes, there should be more restrictions. If more guns would make a country safe, America would be the safest place on earth..... it isn't the case, so....... And why do you need an assault riflle?

As for the invasion, I believe that if Iraq wasn't so wishy-washy in its response to the US about their WMDs the US might have not gone in. Iraqs foreign minister (AKA puppet) kept saying that they won't send information, they refuse to do anything unless the UN did something, and that they refuse to listen to the UN. Confusing, but that is how confusing their responses were.

Finally, when the "drop dead" date was upon them, they said "we want more time". This always sends a signal to other people that something is up. Did Iraqs gov't (timearchy) understand that? They finally sent the information, but it was interpreted as nonsense. The communication was so bad that it convinced the US govt that they were hiding something. It seemed as they were putting on a show for the UN while doing something else under the table.

Tim

Ok, but in the meantime the weapon inspectors had no opposition, they were shown what they asked for. It's too easy to blame the UN, you should look at how the US acted too. The US belittled and insulted every country who disagreed with their lies, don't you think I have the right to tell the Bush Administration to go to hell now?

Where are the WMD's you were so afraid about? And did you know Saddam opposed organizations like Al Qaeda too?

[KhawMengLee]

Khaw the statement i said to dennis has the same application to you aswell. We went because of the UN violations, the biggest that he had WMD since he was unable to show that he had destroyed the WMD. BTW incase you don't know the burden of proof in this case was placed squarely on saddam by the UN back after desert storm. He was considered guilty until he proved himself innocent, hence the US and the coalition made the clear assumption. God only knows where the 5,000 tons of anthrax and other chemical weapons that saddam can't quite tell where they are anymore went.

Yes, I hear you. But the UN inspection teams and the US cheif weapons inspector have both stated that Saddam didn't have those weapons. Even before the war started.

The brunt here is that the reasons for starting was bullshit. I remember Powell going before the UN showing an "intelligence" video of a truck circling a building saying it was a mobile weapons lab...saying it was irrefutable proof of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Today he says he was wrong...go figure.

You think the Iraqis like the US there? Remember what Ghandi said "We would rather prefer the bad government of our own people, than the good government of a foriegn power."

Its a Vietnam all over again. I once sat down with an old Vietnamese man and asked him about the war. One of my questions was "why" the Americans lost. He said, "At the end of the day it was my people, they(NVA) were my people, against them(AMerica)."

Fullajah, okay....Saddam's neck of the woods. But Najaf...that's shiiteville, the side that the US forces thought would be supporters. Now you have Al Qaida in there as well...something that wasn't there before.

Is the situation better...no.

[KhawMengLee]

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25975

Iraq
More than 600 American soldiers have died in Iraq - six more just last weekend. More than 3,000 have been wounded or maimed. Reliable accounts say more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.

I have nothing but respect for all our American service-persons, who serve where the are told in defense of our Constitution-regardless of their politics (indeed,it seems those are their politics) as well as those private citizens who have chosen to help rebuild Iraq , and I'm glad that Saddam is no longer a dictator. I have to wonder, though, at the strategy of this administration, not only with Iraq, but with the world community and, most importantly, U.S. citizens.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. weapons inspector David Kay- a man whose work I know, and whose opinions in this matter we all can respect - has reported that they probably weren't there,(before the war, David Kay was certain that they were there, and so was I) and that the U.S. government should honestly admit that it was mistaken. They haven't. President Bush and his administration now repeatedly say the fact that the principal argument for going to war with Iraq has turned out to be false doesn't matter. There was no "imminent" or "urgent" threat from chemical or biological weapons and Iraq wasn't developing a nuclear threat, as was claimed before the war. The best explanation is that intelligence was manipulated and selectively reported to justify a worst-case scenario previously arrived at on political grounds. The worst is that the case was fabricated. Either way, the president of the United States misled the American people into going to war. A book based on documents from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill , and the webpage of Project for A New American Century make clear that this administration decided to go to war with Iraq even before Sept. 11, and the "facts" were never the decisive factor. CIA Director George Tenet has virtually said that his agency's efforts to prevent the Bush administration from "overstatement" on Iraq were a failure.

Iraq remains chaotic and unstable. Divided factions threaten any political solution, and the largest faction - the Shiites - probably will not support a new provisional government. In July, the United States plans to turn over sovereignty to a new Iraqi government that does not yet exist, a transition that would clearly not be happening if there were no American election in the fall, again a purely political calculation. It is indeed a good thing that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over, but that worthy goal should and could have been accomplished, over time, in much better ways, with greater cooperation, and with a better exit strategy for the U.S. Iraq is now a big mess with no clear or responsible exit strategy in sight and is likely to remain so for a very long time.

The Bush administration's argument that the war with Iraq was a critical battle in the war on terrorism also is not compelling. It can now be argued that the Iraq war may ultimately make the defeat of terrorism more difficult, because of the division it caused among key allies, the deeper resentment it has triggered in Muslim countries, and the failure of the war to produce the promises of democracy in Iraq or the beginning of a Middle East peace agreement, which seems further away than ever. The war in Iraq has proven to be a great distraction and diversion from the fight against terrorism, rather than a necessary component. Already, one third of Afghanistan is again under Taliban control. Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, and the networks of terror are more dispersed throughout the world. Indeed, terrorists from other countries are now in Iraq, where their bombings of civilians are exacerbating the already violent situation, and al Qaeda has carried out a successful and massive terrorist attack in Spain.

In Spain 201 people died from bombs on commuter trains, with hundreds more injured. American columnists are attacking the Spanish people for caving into terrorists because they defeated the pro-American Spanish party in their elections. What they don't say is that the vast majority of the Spanish people were against their government's decision to support the U.S. war with Iraq, which was therefore an undemocratic decision-remember all those people marching in the streets? Or that the ruling party lied to the Spanish people in an attempt to blame the commuter train attacks on Basque separatists and distract attention from al Qaeda.

What the U.S. government and its media allies seem to be saying is that the proper response of the Spanish people after being bombed should have been to vote for the policy of George W. Bush. They didn't. Good for them.


__________________
Aaron J. Cuffee


"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it.It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there...How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?...I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in this fashion."-Then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney , 1991

[dennis]

Oh and dennis just so you know unlike pearl harbor saddam was already targeted since desert storm 1 (you would have been around 3 at the time) and under strict UN sanctions. The US attacked because it had enough of Saddams shennanigans and inability to prove that he had destroyed his WMD.

If you know your enemy has a gun and he says "I got rid of it" so you ask to frisk him and make sure and he says "Okay but you can only touch here, here, and here. Please ignore what i have hidden everywhere else" what is the only assumption that can be made?
I am aware of the strict UN sanctions (and that debacle of an Oil-for-Food program) that were placed on iraq but why is it that we seek to attack someone who we "suspect" of having WMD's when that maniac Kim Jong Il is waving his hands in the air in N.Korea saying I have a Nuke I have a Nuke and he is threatening the use of it. Wouldnt you consider the guy holding the smoking gun more dangerous then someone you saw with a gun once (sorry for the analogy i just pulled it out of thin air as a tool to emphasize my point).

[dennis]

oh and also in response to your statement about the antrhax, by us invading iraq we have essentially allowed any trace of that anthrax (if he had any) to be lost it is what happens whenever a regime change occurs. just like the countless suitcase nukes that are still missing from the collapse of the USSR

[litige]

-Yes i do feel God is helping us right now in our liberation of Iraq. If he was truely against us than a country with such religiously staunch people like iraq, we would not have such a large majority (over 85% of the population) of the population supporting us in their own homelands.


I feel sorry for you.

[Niels]

Bush: Iraq, you'd better get rid of your nuclear weapons or we'll bomb you!
Iraq: We don't have any nuclear weapons.
N Korea: We do.
Bush: Well then get rid of your chemical weapons!
Iraq: We don't have those either!
N Korea: Ummm...we have nukes now.
Bush: We KNOW you've got chemical and nuclear weapons! Get rid of them!
Iraq: Even if we did, which we don't, we can't even hit the USA!
N Korea: We can nuke California all we want.
Bush: Shuddup North Korea, no one cares! Iraq, you'd BETTER disarm!
Iraq: But we don't HAVE anything!
N Korea: Oh fuck it, blow up Los Angeles...
Bush: Iraq, I'm warning you... *BOOM*


:smiley:

[KhawMengLee]

heh... :smiley:

[litige]

Bush: Iraq, you'd better get rid of your nuclear weapons or we'll bomb you!
Iraq: We don't have any nuclear weapons.
N Korea: We do.
Bush: Well then get rid of your chemical weapons!
Iraq: We don't have those either!
N Korea: Ummm...we have nukes now.
Bush: We KNOW you've got chemical and nuclear weapons! Get rid of them!
Iraq: Even if we did, which we don't, we can't even hit the USA!
N Korea: We can nuke California all we want.
Bush: Shuddup North Korea, no one cares! Iraq, you'd BETTER disarm!
Iraq: But we don't HAVE anything!
N Korea: Oh fuck it, blow up Los Angeles...
Bush: Iraq, I'm warning you... *BOOM*


:smiley:


-But then God sees that and save America or else he will loose his investment in oil company...
-hoo!!!
-That's it for today children.
- Thanks Mr.Bush, now we know why God is helping us killing people for money!!!

[samurai999]

About guns, yes, there should be more restrictions. If more guns would make a country safe, America would be the safest place on earth..... it isn't the case, so....... And why do you need an assault riflle?

Ok, but in the meantime the weapon inspectors had no opposition, they were shown what they asked for. It's too easy to blame the UN, you should look at how the US acted too. The US belittled and insulted every country who disagreed with their lies, don't you think I have the right to tell the Bush Administration to go to hell now?

Where are the WMD's you were so afraid about? And did you know Saddam opposed organizations like Al Qaeda too?

I don't know about you, but it seemed as if the European countries just didn't agree period. It didn't matter what the US did. To me, the issue is that they didn't like Bush so therefore, they disagreed in order to disagree.

Yes the UN inspectors were shown areas that were ALREADY devoid of any WMDs but nothing really else. Also IIRC, they weren't allowed access to certain areas and in addition, Iraqi officials had plenty of "advance notice" to prepare for the coming of the UN inspectors. If you were a dictator who didn't want auditors to know something and given the fact that they were coming, wouldn't you want to hide things? The way that Saddams gov't .. ahem.. timearchy presented their information and the mischevous ways they've acted in the past, I didn't really believe their intentions as truthful. Sure US actions aren't totally truthful either, but I'd rather believe in our gov't rather than an unstable dictator. As for Saddam opposing Al Qaeda, maybe he did, but his mind is wanders all the time and therefore, his intentions. He might have been harboring terrorists in one instance while stating his opposition to the public. There are billions of places for them to hide things and if they were more solid in their presentation of their case, then the US might have believed them.

As for guns, I'm not saying to put in more restrictions (more written laws), I'm saying to enforce the laws in place right now better. Also, I am not saying that America is the "safest place on Earth". Have you ever considered that some of the stats of the killed that are given out to the public INCLUDE criminals? And where did I say I needed an assault rifle? Is a 30 cal. bolt action rifle considered an assault rifle? If so, why don't we make bb guns assault rifles as well? Why don't we make paintball markers (or guns) assault rifles as well? Paintball markers and bb guns can maim or kill, why not outlaw them? This is the grey area that the argument is about in a nutshell. As for why I would want a gun I already explained this before.

Tim

[Shiro]

I don't know about you, but it seemed as if the European countries just didn't agree period. It didn't matter what the US did. To me, the issue is that they didn't like Bush so therefore, they disagreed in order to disagree.

We weren't disagreeing just for the fun of it, we were disagreeing because we felt that the situation could become really bad if you went in. American media made it look like we did it for fun, but it wasn't the case at all. Besides, european countries weren't the only ones to disagree, so ......
And since when is it illegal to disagree with the US?


Yes the UN inspectors were shown areas that were ALREADY devoid of any WMDs but nothing really else. Also IIRC, they weren't allowed access to certain areas and in addition, Iraqi officials had plenty of "advance notice" to prepare for the coming of the UN inspectors. If you were a dictator who didn't want auditors to know something and given the fact that they were coming, wouldn't you want to hide things? The way that Saddams gov't .. ahem.. timearchy presented their information and the mischevous ways they've acted in the past, I didn't really believe their intentions as truthful. Sure US actions aren't totally truthful either, but I'd rather believe in our gov't rather than an unstable dictator. As for Saddam opposing Al Qaeda, maybe he did, but his mind is wanders all the time and therefore, his intentions. He might have been harboring terrorists in one instance while stating his opposition to the public. There are billions of places for them to hide things and if they were more solid in their presentation of their case, then the US might have believed them.

The US systematically disagreed with everyone who tried to talk them out of this war, they were the ones that didn't want to listen to anybody. The weapon inspectors could have done what they wanted, the US didn't want to agree with them period.
I remember seeing Hans Blix on the news saying they showed what the inspectors asked and that they didn't meet any opposition. Plus, it's been a year the US are in Iraq now and where are those WMD's?
Saddam harboring terrorists is very unlikely, Bin Laden, for example, didn't like Saddam because he wasn't a religious dictator. Ben Laden put his feelings aside when the US were about to attack Iraq and said Iraq should be helped, but before that, they were more like enemies.


As for guns, I'm not saying to put in more restrictions (more written laws), I'm saying to enforce the laws in place right now better. Also, I am not saying that America is the "safest place on Earth". Have you ever considered that some of the stats of the killed that are given out to the public INCLUDE criminals? And where did I say I needed an assault rifle? Is a 30 cal. bolt action rifle considered an assault rifle? If so, why don't we make bb guns assault rifles as well? Why don't we make paintball markers (or guns) assault rifles as well? Paintball markers and bb guns can maim or kill, why not outlaw them? This is the grey area that the argument is about in a nutshell. As for why I would want a gun I already explained this before.


I don't know a lot about gun names, I just assumed the model you wanted was an assault rifle because you talked about assault rifles right after it, sorry for that :). But still, why do you need a gun?