No WMDs - and no program to develop WMDs either.

raid517

Yeah? Seen any videos of celebrations thrown in honour of American troops in Iraq recently?

Don't kid yourself that the Iraqis are happy with your presence.

I have spoken to a few on Pal Talk, and that is certainly not how they see it.

GJ

GutterPunk

Does the media show that... NO... Why? CUZ ITS NOT JUICY.... If the media showed everythign that was good, no one would watch it... no intesity no thrill... negative thigns like this get the coverage

raid517

Oh common, do you think if there ever was anything like that the US propaganda machine wouldn't make a big thing out of it? After all, some good news coming out of that country is a little overdue, don't you think?

If the Iraqis needed rescuing, I think America would have been the last people they chose to do it.

Indeed this is a view I have heard expressed many times now.

This has nothing to do with how the Iraqis feel - or what they want. If you are too blind to see that, or too fanatical in your love for you Fuhrer, then God help us all.

GJ

GutterPunk

Everything happens for a reason.... lets hope this is a good oen tho

digerati

Far as I can tell our only news source that isn't liberal (a.k.a. the only one that doesn't want us out of Iraq) is Fox news. And I did see a good story the other day, a family who lived in Baghdad and became good friends with a group of soldiers, the head of the family especially connected with this one soldier. They didn't have much, but the man of the house noticed the one soldier admiring the painting in the living room. When the troops were re-stationed the head of the family got news that one soldier was shot and killed. So now he's sending that painting to the soldiers wife back in America.

And you're basing your thoughts on an entire country not liking us because of a few people on paltalk? Do you even realize there are places in Iraq where our soldiers don't wear protective armor because the people there love them so much?

raid517

Yeah right - you really are living on another planet aren't you? People behaving in a sympathetic way when they hear someone was killed is hardly an endorsement of the US occupation of Iraq, now is it? What it is called though, is being human. Maybe as well as reality, that is one other faculty you have lost touch with?

And no it's not just a few people I have spoken to on PalTalk, it is all the TV interviews I have seen - and the newspaper stories I read almost every day. For any one of your 'It's a beautiful Life' type delusions, I could provide you with 50 or more examples of stories where people do not welcome your presence in Iraq.

It's hardly the mass scale 'flowers in gun barrels' type acceptance that a lot of you guys were led to believe you would find when you went there.

Indeed if an American soldier, or an Iraq, or a Jew, or a Palestinian or anyone got killed through no fault of their own, I also might want to express my regret to their parents. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the reasons for why it happened.

In any case, I don't think an American soldier dying in any sense constitutes a 'good news story', do you?

Lol anyway, you got to love you guys. I mean in some countries they have to have special TV channels to spout their propaganda for them. But you guys, you guys are unique - because even when your government isn't feeding you any propaganda, you will willingly go off and create your own.

I would be keen to see these pictures of these happy, smiling welcoming Iraqi people patting the American troops on the back and thanking them for their involvement in their domestic affairs.

Unfortunately I doubt I am going to be able to see it, because lets face it, such images only really exist in your head.

GJ

BluntmaN

Do you mean to tell me that there is a media blackout of positive stories coming from Iraq?(Why is that Mulder???) The only network that wants the war to continue told you about a family and this is news? Let me tell you sentimental reporting is real BS it reminds me of the woman who loses her children and her husband and a reporter askes her how she feels. I mean real stories like a market operating, a mosque working, a cinema open, a road without road blocks, maybe even a city or vilage were there is no need for military law. The rest is just bs same as the liberal propaganda of the people crying in front of a 10 foot crater in central Bagdat that used to be their home. Now the way I heard it there are some Scotish troops in Iraq who dont wear protective gear coz "the supply lines were a bit screwy".

On a final note do you think that the reason behind this war was the liberation of Iraq? Or is it OK to bomb a country to the stone age and then help re-build it using funds that come from their oil.

Falstaff

Bush used the best available information that was at hand, I have no right to judge what he did since he did so in direct response the circumstances. I was certain that Bush was going to get rid of Saddam long before 9/11, I remember his father and all the predecessors in the great line. what you call lying isnt the real issue. All the presidents have hidden the truth from all of us to a lessor extent because in the great scheme of things it was unnecessary for us to know. I spent a good part of my life in the military so I accept these things readily. But I can understand why anyone else wouldnt. I believe if Bush recieved the correct information we would have changed the timetable, but we certainly would have proceeded down the same path.

raid517

Yes I think that too Jeff. But only because I believe that this was never about WMDs in the first place. It seems almost as though you are agreeing with me for a change.

I know you think it was for some kind of greater American glory, that the world has come to fear America a little more, but I think the truth is that the world has come to mistrust and hate America a little more.

I could understand the war in Afganistan at least that was about something - but I am pretty sure that there was a whole new set of motives for invading Iraq. And for those that know me on these boards, you can already be quite sure what I believe these motives to be.

GJ

Falstaff

My understanding has always been that the WMD argument was supposed to be persuasive enough to polarize the world community as the invasion of Kuwait did. UN backing would have made the effort in IRAQ just as complicated and cost as many lives as the narrowly focused effort by the present coalition, but perhaps it would have shown the muslim world that the we all could unite again to end the regime of a tyrant. The world will again see this happen again, and a false peace will ensue from it.

raid517

Only one slight problem with that Jeff - nobody believed it. It seems they were right too.

GJ

PS

I get the Biblical references Jeff, but unfortunately they are really quite wasted on me.

Falstaff

I went to the Persian Gulf with the knowlege that Saddam had done something that raised the hackles of even his former allies. After an unsuccessful war with IRAN and the betrayel of the Kurds, it seemed his next move would have been another neighboring country, who truly knew his motives other than the purely economic advantage of using the Kuwait oilfields to fill his countrys coffers. I was certain that the younger Bush would pursue Saddam again, expecially after the failed assisnation attempt on Bush senior and the attacks on the USS STARK among other things. I dont care what everyone thinks. Saddam was responsible for the lives lost on the Stark and for that he will pay.

GutterPunk

Jeff... I have to agree with you. Saddam himself has been responsible for so many lives lost throughout some time.

raid517

Well we are really starting to scrape the barrel for reasons now here Jeff aren't we? As far as I recall Iraq was an ally of the United States at that time and the US was their biggest sponsor and arms supplier. It doesn't pay to go pissing off you friends, particularly not one that was as important as the US was to Iraq throughout this period. I think the explanation they gave was pretty reasonable that they thought it was an Iranian oil tanker. They had no other sane or rational reason for attacking that ship - and this is what your last Republican administration concluded also.

Now you can rewrite history (since there seems to have been a lot of that going on recently) all you want, but ultimately what this was a case of was friendly fire. The fact that you weren't choosing your friends too carefully at that time is neither here nor there, it just doesn't make any sense to have been anything other than a mistake. Now you can say that it is impossible to know the mind of a mad man, and make vague references to some master plan he may have had, but to have done this knowingly you would have to be worse than a madman - you would have to be a fool. And this we know Saddam never was.

GJ

digerati

Tell me how that statement ties into us being there, please.

Falstaff

we were not their biggest sponser or arms supplier, we provided support intially to suplant the possible invasion from IRAN after the hostage debacle. Ronald Reagan feared a muslim revolution that would sweep the borders of IRAQ and unite the Shia together to form a new more powerful country. But after Rumsfelds letter and the intel reports emerging from IRAQ it became clear that Saddam was a thug, and stories of his treatment of the Kurds became evident. His people were murdered, exiled, jailed, enslaved to serve the Baath party. I think it became clear to Reagen and perhaps our allies that Saddam was dangerous and our support dwindled. I can recall the scandals that ensued. I remember the Hawk missles, the weapons sales. This post cold war style of brinksmenship would yield nothing but contempt from IRAQ and IRAN at the same time.

raid517

Read the lines that come after it. That should explain all. If you still have problems understanding, let me know and I will spell it out for you.

GJ

raid517

Then who I ask you was then Jeff, who else was enthusiastically supporting them at this time?

GJ

Falstaff

The French and the Russians
we sold Hawk missles, some older ships, old helicopters, landmines, shoulder fired missles, medical assistance, technical support, military training for ships crews. Higher level education for professionals. oops almost forgot the Chinese mines, Italian machine guns, Italian antitank mines and N.Korean antiship missles (of which two were fired at my ship)

raid517

Yeah Jeff, but who was the biggest, who paid the most? I can quote numbers for you if you want....

GJ

Falstaff

I am talking about sheer volume, the combined French, Russian, Chinese, N. Korean and other European support was disproportionally larger and lasted until the capitulation.

raid517

And I am talking about facts. The American contribution, both covert and overt outweighed them all. You want to play this game Jeff? It is only through my respect of your former status that I don't start pulling up numbers now. I am in no rush to embarrass you.

GJ

Falstaff

I disagree, it isnt a game really, I am talking about the Iran-Contra Scandal and its affect on covert support. The disentergration of support for IRAQ during the Reagen years. and the covert support by the aforementioned countries I named. Right after the invasion of Kuwait, a polar shift in support did occur, and IRAQ's nieghbors began smuggling in arms and weapons for IRAQ. Clandestine attempts to buy weapons technology were thwarted by Israel, the U.S. and our European allies. But the soviet and pro communist support was hardly diminished. And oddly enough, French support as well.

digerati

Alright then, lets begin.

"It doesn't pay to go pissing off you friends, particularly not one that was as important as the U