Question for lurking conservatives

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Do you really think that the pictures of Iraqi prisoners are no big deal and that this won't come back to haunt our soldiers when they are captured in conflicts?

Do you really think this war has been worth the cost?

I am interested in real convictions in the matter.

[NMDemDist2]

1. self delete

heheheh good luck

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. No. I'm really interested in the logic

[Mick Knox]

68. If really interested...

Maybe post somewhere where they can respond? You'll probably get better insight to whatever they could be thinking - if anything at all.

[burythehatchet]

3. What's the big deal

these people need to be shown who's boss. Even our ladies are tougher than those terrorists

[daveskilt]

4. "even our ladies" ?? wtf?

this is the 5th or 6th bit of sexist tripe Ive seen here today

[Melsky]

5. I hope this is sarcasm

[burythehatchet]

8. come on Melsky

would a fan of your work really believe that???

[Melsky]

22. LOL

Well, I knew it was sarcasm based on your other posts. But I'm in a pissy mood today.

Actually, a fan of my work would believe that. I sold a lot of paintings to someone who was a big bush supporter. In fact, I did a search on their ebay user name, and found her posting at free republic. I could tell it was the same person from her profile. Yikes!

All that ended the day she read my live journal and found out what a pinko commie peacenik I am. She sent me an email that said she had read my it and found it "interesting". She never bought another one of my paintings again. She has about 20 of them. I always wonder if she still has my paintings up and if she thinks about my political views when she sees them.

[burythehatchet]

24. sounds like an interesting exchange.

:)

[daveskilt]

67. oooooohhhhh it was sarcasm...excellent. sorry missed that

been in georgia too long...they dont have sarcasm down here and I wasnt used to it anymore.

[burythehatchet]

71. Hey fellow Georgian.

I'm a NYC transplant (18 years ago), still feel like a stranger

[daveskilt]

73. 18 years! wow. just 3 in GA for me

transplant from Utah and before that Scotland. and soon to be transplanted somewhere else as soon as I find a job now that school is over.

[Joanne98]

117. I love your art.

:)

[9215]

6. hee, methinks "who's boss" tips your hand. A real freep

would have said it was about liberation, etc.

[Tina H]

7. There is probably more than . . .

$300 billion worth of oil under the sand in Iraq. The life of an army volunteer or draftee is cheap, and therefore does not effect the military spending versus oil profit balance.

This is my guess at the secret economic calculus of a typical freeper. I would say "typical conservative" rather than typical freeper, but I don't think this is the way Buchanan or McCain or Sobran really feel about things.

Clarification: I vehemently disagree with this proposed economic reasoning, and can explain my reasons for disagreement if this is neccessary (somehow I doubt it is neccessary here).

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. I think it is a HUGE deal!!!!!

Oh wait, you said "lurking conservatives", LMAO.

But, not, the war has not been worth any of the costs. To borrow a favored chant from the Vietnam era... "Bush, pull out like your father should have!!!!"

[Tina H]

11. Actually, his father did pull out . . .

(of Iraq). That is a (piss-poor) secondary reason that we are there now.

[ulTRAX]

12. non freep response

Tina H wrote: "Actually, his father did pull out . . . (of Iraq). That is a (piss-poor) secondary reason that we are there now."

I had problems with Bush1 leaving Saddam in power. But maybe there was wisdom in that decision besides wanting a viable counterweight to Iram. As Cheney said in 1991:

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?"

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm

[Tina H]

17. You raise a good point

Maybe gassing the Kurds was a good reason to depose Saddam (I don't think the Kuwaiti invasion was a sufficient reason to depose Saddam).

The tricky part is that he didn't gas the Kurds until we left, and once we left, we didn't want to go back right away. Does this mean we should have pre-empted the Kurd gassing by deposing Saddam?

I don't know. In general, I am against pre-emptive strikes.

[GirlinContempt]

28. The best way to prevent the gassing....

Not selling it to him and encouraging him?

[dpibel]

35. It's even trickier than that

Since the notorious Halabja gas attack happened in 1988 which, last I heard, was while the US was still present in full force--as friend and supporter, rather than as invader.

And for all of that, there remains very substantial question as to whether the gas in Halabja was Iraqi or Iranian. It's especially confusing since, Iraq being the force of good at the time, the CIA blamed the Halbja attack on Iran.

In 1988, the US didn't need to depose Saddam to keep him from using poison gas. It just needed to quit selling it to him.

[Tina H]

69. I had thought that Saddam used gas . . .

against the Kurds in 1991, but now I see that I was wrong. Thanks to your reply and the other for clearing that up for me.

Do you have an opinion as to whether the 1988 gas was Iraq or Iran?

[dpibel]

72. How could I have an opinion?

When it was convenient, the CIA said it was Iranian gas.

When the Booshes required a good topic for the two-minute hate to flog the American people into supporting war, the CIA said it was Iraqi gas.

When the people who are supposed to help the participants in a supposed democracy be informed citizens lie as a matter of course, it becomes impossible to form opinions on these matters.

To put it another way: I have no idea whose gas it was. But I know incontrovertibly that my government has lied to me.

[Zero Gravitas]

70. Gassing the Kurds

happened in 1988, but the Iran-Iraq war was still on, so the US was OK with it.

[Imperialism Inc.]

91. The gassing was pre-first-gulf-war and was supported, covered

up and spun by the Reagan administration. The famous Rummy photos/film are during a time when Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran almost daily.

Here is a mainstream article on it, with excepts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

--clip--
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

--clip--
To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

--clip--
In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

--clip--
The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

[greatauntoftriplets]

15. Ummmm, not exactly what I meant.

My meaning had something to do that would have prevented George W. from being born. Guess you had to be there....during the Vietnam era, I mean.

[Tina H]

18. Born in '62 . . .

but I picked up your cultural referent in college history class.

I just think withdrawal would have been a method too risky for Bush Sr. and Barb.

[frank frankly]

10. Clenis?

that's the best i can think of...

:hi:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pepperbelly]

16. this is an absolute masterpiece of non sequitur ...

:nuke:

[uhhuh]

19. HAHAHAHA!!!

Please, please please, MODS!!! Leave this post up! I can't stop laughing!!
"I know who you are, and I saw what you did!!!"

Watch out for nucklear missles!!!

Agent Mike, is that you? :hi:

[888]

14. ....................

first of all all military conflicts will be expensive. 2nd. it is human nature to want to take revenge. i got upset when i saw the pictures and i did not enjoy to think about that our troops stooped so low as to do this. as for the pictures themselves i have heard most of them are of Iraqi's that have done the same thing to our prisoners and our troops were just angry about it.

[uhhuh]

20. You heard that?

Do you have a link?

[burythehatchet]

23. A friend of Rush's brother heard it from a couple of guys

who were hanging out at the bar where.......

[tinanator]

21. lol

yeah? I heard they were just photoshopped.

[tinanator]

25. dangit, why doesnt the government tell us this stuff?

They did it to us first? That pisses me off. And the media kept it from us! Liberals! Always lying and controlling the discussion through their evil media owning ways!

[hang a left]

38. What prisoners are you referring to? n/t

[drfemoe]

60. where is this

prison in Ira* which is holding and abusing American soldiers?

[_NorCal_D_]

61. Nonsense

as for the pictures themselves i have heard most of them are of Iraqi's that have done the same thing to our prisoners and our troops were just angry about it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040504/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hamill
Doctor: Iraqis Treated Hostage's Wound

<snip>
Hamill was shot in the arm when his convoy was ambushed April 9. He recalls receiving medication for the wound and being put under anesthesia after being captured, though it's unclear whether he was taken to a clinic or a doctor came to him, Jepsen said.
</snip>


Those savages... those monsters... :eyes:

[daveskilt]

65. you heard that....well I heard...

actually read (not listened to rush read for me) an interview in the guardian with a chap who had been tortured by saddam and by americans in the same building. not a lot changed for him I imagine with the americans coming.

[Joanne98]

118. Big BS Our prisoners have been treated good

Private Jessica Lynch aka (Xena) was treated like a princess.

[rasputin1952]

26. Once again NSMA, you've posted what I've thought...

Inevitably, our soldiers will be treated just as bad, if not worse, after this stuff hit the airwaves.

These people were BEYOND stupid, and other soldiers will pay a horrible price...:(

[cookre]

27. No, and I don't know...

Once an enemy combatant is behind the lines and behind bars, the rough stuff ends. Period. We're supposed to be above that.

Moreover, I wish the private contractors tasked with intelligence gathering were as legally answerable for their actions as the military is.

Will it come back to haunt us there or elsewhere? Possibly, but not to any great extent. Thugs are thugs everywhere, and claiming treatment in kind for what some of our folks have done would just be a convenient excuse for what they would like as not have done anyway.

Has it been worth the cost? It's far too early to tell.

[hang a left]

39. Well I heard they didn't stick anything up Hamill's ass. n/t

[Skittles]

29. are you OK Teena?

you are behaving like you think perhaps you may receive some logical responses from conservatives. Do you need me to come over and kick your ass? It's late but I've got time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. mmmm ass kicking by Skittles

I'll be dreaming about that now..thanks a lot...do I need to bring the dimes?

[Skittles]

57. LOL

I did some butt exercises over the weekend I can still feel! :o

[lordvader2112]

30. Actually, I'm a lurking Conservative...

Since you asked an honest question, I'll give you an honest answer: What those U.S. soldiers did was sickening. There's absolutely no excuse for it and I hope to God they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

And believe it or not, the majority of my fellow Conservatives feel the same way. Because you're right, it will have an effect on how our military is treated as POW's. (not that the iraqi army was all that accommodating to begin with.)

But even worse, it looks really, REALLY bad in the eyes of other nations. As a world leader, we're suppose to be above this type of depravity. And the actions of a handful of idiots have cast a pall over the entire Armed Forces and blackened our credibility.

[Sparkly]

31. Who are the "handful of idiots?"

Do you think only the people pictured are responsible, and no one above them?

Beyond the obvious chain upward, how can we say there was no effect, in fact, of the tone established at the very top, characterizing Iraqis as "terrorists" and advocating a military solution to a political problem -- a problem our government created from lies and smokescreens about an unrelated mission against Al Qaeda?

[Justitia]

36. Thank you for a considered response.

I am glad that we agree from all sides of the aisle that this is a VERY BAD THING and should be condemned by all.

I am really frightened by what this will mean to all our other soldiers (incl those still held hostage), as well as our reputation and higher moral purpose in the world.

WE ARE AMERICANS. WE DON'T DO THIS.

I'm not being naive, almost every male mbr of my family has served in every branch, I am familiar with the dirty business of war. My father was in Vietnam. I understand the psychological terror of feeling vulnerable to death at any moment, and how that stress can cleave your mind in catastrophic ways. This is entirely different from being in complete command over human beings totally at your mercy.

Being American means carrying the banner of what should be the most superior force in the world - in ideals, purpose and conduct towards those we subjugate militarily.

Once again, we are Americans, we don't do this, and this is what sets us apart (or should). What disgrace they bring to all of us.

Thanks again for a serious response.
It's nice to agree once in awhile on the big things.

[Tina H]

It may get me in trouble, but . . .

I want to thank you for your candid and sensible response. Everyone decries political polarization, but few do anything about it.

If we US citizens are trying to be less corrupt that the food-for-oil administrators, then we have to *be in fact* less corrupt than the food-for-oil administrators. If we can't meet that standard than we ought to focus on cleaning house in favor of focusing on conquest of oil-rich nations and pre-empting the UN.

[ComerPerro]

50. I really hope it doesnt come to that, but you are correct

It endangers our troops. It just gets very frustrating sometimes because many on the right seem to be under the impression that anything we do is ok, because we are America. They don't seem to realize that how we treat our POWs, both in Iraq and at Gitmo, will reflect on how American POWs will be treated by our enemies.

And, I agree that it really cramps our credibility.

[ForrestGump]

51. On other sites (not dedicated political sites)

I've seen self-labeled conservatives railing against what those MPS did. Veterans seem to be especially upset.

On those same sites, the 'liberals' placed it more in the perspective of not being as bad as the very fact of the war itself....basically, is it worse to be abused as a POW or to be some poor little kid (or whoever) killed in ana rtillery or gunship attack.

I think both points-of-view are valid. This kind of mistreatment of POWs has been a part of war since the dawn of history, though usually far more lethal in nature. It shouldn't be a surprise, except to those who're blinded by propaganda and sanitized war movies and the like. On the other hand, the mistreatment is an atrocity of sorts and the perpetrators are war criminals...just because it's part and parcel of most wars doesn't make it okay. It's sick. And, yes, I don't think this is going to be really helpful to Americans captured or kidnapped by various extremists. The only positive I can see is that maybe -- just maybe -- Americans will start to wonder about the myth of American purity of purpose (not that the lessons of Wounded Knee, My Lai, etc, weren't quite enough...Americans don't seem to have a great sense of history, collectively).

[Cheswick2.0]

52. Can you see how the mercenary policies of Bush have caused this?

Can you see how putting so much power in the hands of private contractors has contributed to this problem? Can you see why government actions should be run by government employees because only then can we hold people accountable to act in our government's (people's)best interests?

[daveskilt]

64. thanks for the post. I like conservatives!

I think we all agree on this on both sides of the aisle. The worry is the fact that according to CNN over 40% of Americans are ok with torture.

I can agree with conservatives on a lot of things and understand where we disagree on others. I think on DU there is a tendency to lump the religious fundamentalist, confederate flag waving, bush style fascist folks who think torture is fine if the glorious leader says it is, into one big group and call it conservative. It is a shame since the whole benefit of a system of a democratic republic such as the US is to engage in meaningful dialogue. The loonies on left and right SHOULD be on the fringes but with the current empowerment of the loonies on the far right it becomes a polarized state where no dialogue can occur in the center. I hope my fellow moderates and sensible conservatives will see this and oust bush before he institutes a state religion and a draft and buggers about with the constitution.

[Stuckinthebush]

66. I want everyone to notice something about lordvader2112

He/She has not been tomb-stoned.

Why? Because he/she is engaging in constructive discussions.

Please let this fact put to rest the notion among some conservatives that DU will automatically ban you if you say you are a conservative.

Thank you for the response, lordvader2112.

[TXlib]

103. S/he's also only got one post so far.

Time will tell.

I've made a point of telling people on another webboard that conservative viewpoints are not unwelcome here, as long as they engage in constructive debate, and don't merely troll or engage in personal attacks.

I will be happy to see my assertions vindicated.

[x-g.o.p.er]

76. You give me hope....

that there are still sensible people left in the Republican party. I switched and became a democrat for a variety of reasons, which I won't go into here, but this post gives me hope that maybe someday we can overcome this political polarization that has captured both parties and get back to being Americans first, not Republicans or Democrats. By the way, I agree with every word you said.

And hey, Welcome to DU!

[Ms. Clio]

85. "Iraqi army?" There's no such thing

And they treated U.S. POWs like gold compared to this disgusting debacle.

[Occulus]

89. Good to know we're all on the same side on this.

You're right; it was sickening to see. Thanks for your candid response.

Welcome to DU; it's too bad the welcome has to be made in this context.

[Maestro]

105. Thanks for non-rhetorical response

Much appreciated.

[Joanne98]

119. Do you really think Bush didn't know?

Cause if you do you're naive. He knew and encouraged it. Bush has disgraced our country and corrupted our troops. It's your duty as a patriot to vote for Kerry.

[leftyandproud]

33. Why can't we have a DEBATE forum on DU??

I would seriously like to hear the puke response to this and some other questions...Why not create a single DU forum for combat with the r/wingers? We would have 20 forums to ourselves, and one forum to embarass the freeps. It would be fun. Why not?

[MissRegina]

37. I Like That Idea, Lefty

However, the freepers might sneak into the DU-only forums. And some of the more sensitive liberal posters might sh*t rocks when they see anyone contradicting their views. Just my opinion. I love debate and would love to invite the freepers in.

[leftyandproud]

42. Let's DO IT!!

Mods, are you listening? How bout it? A forum for debate...and if any of the Freeps try posting in normal forums, ban them as usual. If we have a forum to vent and blow of steam in debates, there will be less "disruptors" on our other forums. How do we get started?

[0rganism]

47. Absolutely NOT

This suggestion is neither new nor helpful. This is not a site for liberal vs. conservative debates, it is a liberal opinion forum. Debate with conservatives has been tried here before, and is a gateway to nowhere. You want a forum to debate issues with the GOPers?

Try http://www.americasdebate.com

They have a similar forum layout to DU, with different topic areas and fully threaded conversations, and free registration. They need more liberals posting to balance out the abundant freeper trash. Go forth and make your points, as if anyone cares. See how much you like it. And it's not the only one, you can get a fight going on any number of sites.

Or, set up an e-mail debate with a conservative, agree whether or not to post the results later, and hash it out in private. No harm done.

Please keep this site blissfully free of pseudo-eclectic garbage. You may think the neo-cons care about polite discussion, but the primary reason they come here is to mock and hate us, and maybe do a little trolling. See the conservatives replying in this thread? They don't care about your point of view, they're here to score points for bush if they can and find quotes from DUers to take out of context back in trollsville for disection. Invite those fuckers into a debate subforum, and they'll cross-pollute the other forums, sure as shit. Then they'll get banned, and won't finish the debates anyway. Everyone loses.

This is a Democratic (big D) site, and as far as I'm concerned, the less comfortable dogmatic fascists feel here, the better.

[durutti]

55. Thanks for the link.

I would emphasize, however, that DU is not a "liberal" site. It is, as you said, a big-"D" Democratic site. There's a difference -- one that is increasingly pronounced.

[Bandit]

59. 1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.

This is the very first Rule on DU so I would say it very much is a place for liberals and not just Democrats with a big D.

[tkmorris]

48. Bandwidth

I think you are gonna have a real hard time selling this to Skinner et al because I simply CANNOT envision them paying money to give Repubs a place to argue. I am fairly sure that they are having enough trouble keeping DU going as a worthwhile enterprise without the extra expense such a forum would be.

It would be a true Money Pit. I don't imagine the Freepers would donate to help pay for it, do you?

I love the idea, but making it practical seems out of reach.

[dpibel]

44. Boy, you got that right

Us sensitive liberals around here never disagree about anything. Read all these threads, and all you see is "me, too" and "I surely do agree with everything you said."

You've just got it nailed.

[Bridget Burke]

56. Freepers sneak in all the time.

They really don't fool anybody.

There's plenty of debate at DU, but the idiot freepers are so boring. And they pop up in all sorts of non-political sites; we "sensitive liberal posters" have many opportunities to argue with them elsewehere.

[catzies]

81. The trait you mentioned isn't exclusive property of sensitive liberals.

Not the sh*ting rocks but that it comes from contradiction of views. That distinction belongs exclusively to the other side. Just my opinion.

We are more broad-minded here than is perceived. And liberal isn't a dirty word here; welcome to DU. :hi:

[rumguy]

99. have you no sense of decency?

x( x( x( x( x( x( x(

[durutti]

45. I agree.

n/t

[durutti]

46. I just started a thread in Ask the Administrators about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x17348

[Imperialism Inc.]

92. Well starting the offer by calling them pukes probably isn't

going help much.
Lol sorry.

[Miles dEath]

34. OK, I'll bite

I'll likely get banned but what the heck.

1) Do you really think that the pictures of Iraqi prisoners are no big deal .......

Quite the opposite.
I'm prior Army Infantry and am aware of the considerable amount of training received on the handling of POWs. As such these actions are punishable by UCMJ and should be - to the fullest extent of the law and done so in a VERY public manner. There should be a very clear message sent to the whole world that the US will not tolerate such behavior either within our ranks or by our enemies.


2) Do you really think this war has been worth the cost?

The war is not over and the costs will be much higher. It will be a war that will likely last decades taking hundred of thousands of lives on both sides and cost Billions of dollars. We have not yet begun to see the cost of this war either in blood or in gold.

Is it worth it, yes.
Because I do not define Peace as the absence of war. Peace is the benefit, the result of war. All that we know as good and right have required a war so that good could replace evil. I would point out to you that the Civil War was required to stop the evil of slavery. The Revolution was required to establish the rights we currently enjoy under the bill of rights. WWII was required to remove two brutal dictators from power so they could not spread their evil to the rest of the world.

I have walked the grounds of Dachau, a Nazi concentration camp. I have felt the horror of thousands of Jews slaughtered for no reason other than their religion. I have felt the evil of the place and I personally know that evil does exist in this world. The hate, the intolerance, the evil, just because the person did not accept the state religion of paganism.

I define Peace as the establishment of tolerance and freedom so that no man or woman is a slave to another person, or to a religion, or to the state. Since radical Islam and it's followers have the STATED GOAL of forcing their religion on me and my family, I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. I will therefor support those who carry the fight to the enemy. I will die to defend my right to worship as I choose, to live under a government that allows the people to decide who shall lead, and where my freedoms are enshrined in a constitution that restricts the power of the state.

And before anyone calls me a "chicken hawk" I HAVE served 6 yr 9 months 3 days in the Army. I was put out due to injuries sustained while in the defense of freedom. No, I did not serve in combat, but I have been fired upon. Also, while in the service I did leave my blood in the operating room floor trying to restore my ability to run. I have other injuries that will pain me the rest of my life; my back, my shoulder, hearing loss from explosions, frostbite on my face, hands and toes. Though I suffer pain to this day, though I can only walk not run, though my children do not understand why their daddy can't jump on the trampoline with them, I do not regret the price I have personally paid to stand guard against those that would force their will on me.

Though I am not medically fit to serve in the Army (I am disabled veteran) I continue to be of service to my country. I continue to work to educate the leadership of this nation, specifically the intelligence community as well as our Congress on technical issues related to security and the Internet. My credentials make me one of a dozen or so individuals in the world in my area of expertise. I may no longer be able to serve on the front lines, but I serve where I can.

And if you think those ideals make me a conservative, I would recommend that you actually read the speeches of JFK. I am a "classic liberal", a modern conservative.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

40. I admire and share your stated values and revered principles of liberty.

And you damn sure have put your body where your beliefs are, from your self-description. And I'm glad your children have you around to teach them the principles you cherish and hoped to defend.

But I don't hesitate to bring up the maddening outrageous fact that the US government which you enobled with your sacrifice has not acted in good faith to promote democracy or human rights.

Instead, it has overthrown democratically elected leaders, armed terrorist thugs and organized death squads and trained torturers to destabilize and topple governments not sufficiently compliant with US corporations and US national interests.

Just this February, thugs armed with 20,000 new US-issued M16s overran and terrorized the desperately poor people of Haiti and US marines kidnapped the former shanty-town priest turned populist liberation theologian and democratically elected Aristide. He and his US citizen wife were flown against their will to isolation in the Central African Republic.

This is only one of many many outrages perpetrated by the government you risked your life for despite your hope to be defending the freedoms so viciously violated by your own government.

Do you know how Bush* stole the election of 2000 by having his brother Jeb and Florida Sec. of State and campaign mgr. Katherine Harris throw tens of thousands of black voters off the rolls?

Do you know how this put a 10 month air bubble in domestic security just as the Al Queda threat was building? No action taken by the Bush* admin. until a Sept.4 '01 meeting? Because they could hardly care less about domestic terrorism (which Clinton was all over) and were instead working to promote Star Wars weaponization of space?!!

3000 Americans died on 9/11 alone because of the coup of 2000!

Do you care about the US military anthrax used against the press and Democrats in Congress to rush through the unread gutting of the Bill of Rights so obscenely called the 'Patriot Act'?

Do you care that the Cheney admin. created their own intelligence office to justify the same kind of war of aggression that got Nazis hung in Nurmberg in 1947?

Do you care that the war was done on the cheap and cost more of our troops lives because of this?

Do you care that the after-war planning was thrown out the window and nuclear facilities and hospitals were looted while over 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed and nuclear material has gone God knows where?

But the oil fields were protected!

Do you care that the Cheney neocons have done everything they can to stop the International Criminal Court and have cut deals with every country they can to get immunity from war crimes prosecution?

Do you care that every single environmental regulation has been rolled back while our air is getting dirtier, children are dying from asthma, mercury is building up in our oceans, lead is at high levels in our city pipe systems, global warming could possible soon stop the Gulf Stream and destroy food production on much of the planet?

Do you care that family planning and education and birth control and AIDS medicines have all been devastated to pander to the Christian Fundamentalist anti-women anti-sex anti-gay Republican constituency?

Do you care that the Pledge of Allegience is being promoted to replace the Bill of Rights?

Do you care that the walls of church and state are being torn down all over the place to create a Taliban culture in this country?

Do you care that the budget which is supposed to provide health and human services and education and retirement has been looted for the wealthy and defense contractors leaving the rest of us to starve jobless with schools crumbling and closing?

This is just off the top of my head.

How do you deal with this betrayal of the US people and the world by the Oil,Weapons,and Drug company-hijacked Republican party?

Do you know that the US government has worked for decades to PREVENT democracy with the blood of pricipled people like you? We are on the same side here and I wonder if you know that.

[Eureka]

41. Just one question

But first, thanks for a considered response. I doubt a post like this would get you banned, I don't think banning is carried out because someone identifies themselves as a conservative, but because of the 'linguistic style' of their posts, but anyway....

You wrote "Since radical Islam and it's followers have the STATED GOAL of forcing their religion on me and my family..... "

My question is, do you see the Iraq situation has having anything to do with fighting radical islam?

[Miles dEath]

74. ref: Just one question

"My question is, do you see the Iraq situation has having anything to do with fighting radical Islam?"

Yes but even more so with freeing millions of slaves to a brutal dictator.

[Eureka]

79. Hi Miles

Thanks for the reply (by the way, I'm on the other side of the planet, so responses might be a little late)

Now I'll get adventurous on two fronts...

First, wrt radical islam. If that has anything to do with it, would you advocate invading other nations that have radical islamist community sectors? Indonesia, for example, is the worlds most populist islamic nation with about 200 million people (10 times the population of Iraq) and there are plenty of radicals there (check out Jemaah Islamir, Abu Bakar Bashir, Bali Bombing etc) Malaysia, well if you've heard some of the stuff former leader Mahatir said... Would you advocate the invasion of either of these countries? If not, how would you suggest stifling these huge radical islamist populations?

Second, wrt slaves of a brutal dictator. What was special about Saddams own brand of brutal dictatorship? There are plenty of other regimes that I think could be compared here (South Africa during Appartheid, Mugabe in Zimbabwe isn't making many friends, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Pinochet and a few other South American countries) So, my question is, what was the criteria upon which Saddam was judged worthy of invasion while others are not?

[Miles dEath]

115. replies to your questions

"...would you advocate invading other nations that have radical islamist community sectors?"

If the nation aids and abets the terrorists, and support their efforts to kill US citizens, yes.

"So, my question is, what was the criteria upon which Saddam was judged worthy of invasion while others are not?"

I reject your assumption that others are not worthy of invasion. But for your question of what is the condition that creates the impetuous to attack other nations, how about thousands of Americans murdered? Many that I know would rather it be a few hundred. What is your number?

[dpibel]

121. Saddam Hussein? From Iraq?

What did he have to do with murdering thousands of Americans?

[Ms. Clio]

86. Yeah it's so much better now

that they're slaves to a new and improved brutal dictator.

[_NorCal_D_]

43. Thanks for the rational response.

I would say that your argument makes a lot of sense. That is if I wasn't a biased, partisan hack. B-)

You said:
Because I do not define Peace as the absence of war. Peace is the benefit, the result of war. All that we know as good and right have required a war so that good could replace evil. I would point out to you that the Civil War was required to stop the evil of slavery. The Revolution was required to establish the rights we currently enjoy under the bill of rights. WWII was required to remove two brutal dictators from power so they could not spread their evil to the rest of the world.

You are absolutely correct in that assertion and I think that you’ll find that few progressives would dispute the urgency of WWII or the profound significance of the Revolutionary war. You are also correct to note that any act of liberation could in more instances than not be perceived as a noble, just cause. However recent events prove that this Iraq quagmire is anything but an act of liberation :

More Iraqis see U.S. as occupier, not liberator
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/observer/news/7091288.htm

<snip>
According to the poll, coalition forces have squandered the goodwill that resulted from removing Saddam Hussein from power, with nearly 43 percent of Iraqis viewing them as liberators six months ago but 14.8 percent feeling that way now.
</snip>


Simply put, the Iraqi’s loathe our presence. With that in mind, the rationalization of a moral and omniscient US strolling in to ‘free’ Iraq is absurd on its face.

When we lose credibility with the very people who we hoped to liberate, how could this endeavor be described as moral and just act?

[ComerPerro]

49. Keep posting replies like that and you probably WONT get banned

Thank you for responding in a formal, rational, calm, straightforward manner.

[hippywife]

53. Peace is the absense of war

Because I do not define Peace as the absence of war. Peace is the benefit, the result of war.

In my estimation, peace is not "just" the absence of war. If we would quit elevating and propping up tyrant regimes in order to gain access to the resources that allow our overly exravagant way of life there would be peace. These tyrants are paid handsomely for their compliance with the theft of the resources that should benefit the entire populations of their countries, yet their people live in poverty and terror while we turn a blind eye to how these puppet regimes mistreat their populations because we are getting what we want out of the deal.

If Afganistan had not been used as a pawn in the cold war, if the people of various ME and African nations were beneficiaries of the sales of their resources rather than only their tyrannical governments, how much anger do you think could possibly have been mustered towards acts such as 9/11?

Trickle down is an ineffective process here, how much more so in these military states abroad. How many of those people actually see the benefits of what their governments so handsomely provide this country?

My recurring thought for sometime, as I view the poverty much of the rest of the world lives in, has been, "How long will the rest of the world let is live the way we do, sucking up the world's resources for our way of life while much of the rest of the world's populations struggle to stay alive because of starvation and disease?" This question came to me again very strongly just before 9/11 and finally, that question was answered, "Not long now."

In the late 80's, when Saddam Hussein attacked the Kurds with chemical weaponry, we went to him and basically said, "Now, now...we don't look too kindly on these kind of acts." And simply turned around and continued to deal with the man because he had what we want.

It's time to turn the tables on these tyrants. They do have what we want but in order to maintain their own wealth, they need us to want it. During the previous World Wars, Americans willingly complied with requests to trim back their lifestyles to support the overthrow of tyranny. How many Americans today are willing to do that to maintain peace so that we are able to negotiate these tyrants into allowing their populations to benefit from what they have to sell?

It seems the large corporations of this world don't want us to do that, they sell and oversell us on things we don't need so they and the puppet regimes they support can stay wealthy to the detriment of the rest of us...the citizens of the world.

With freedom comes responsibility, we are falling down on our responsibilities.

In the end, it is analogous to purposely not maintaining one's personal health because there is a pill or a surgical procedure to fix the problems that occur. These should be last ditch efforts, as should promoting peace through war.

[Cheswick2.0]

54. Iraq was a secular nation

Now it may very well become a state run by radical islamists. You can thank bush when Iraq becomes just another radical terrorist factory.
One of the reasons Saddam was such a bad guy was because he kept that religious fundamentalist faction under control and out of power.

[welshTerrier2]

58. on values, methods and outcomes

while i agree with many of the values you cited, I think you have things very twisted ...

I admire your call for tolerance and freedom of all people ... we share those values ... as an aside, I might question whether the U.S. should, or could, IMPOSE this everywhere on the planet ... and I might also question the motives of our government and our military as it is often used around the globe ... it's easy to say we are liberators; it may be nothing but PR ...

but even these arguments do not lead to my referring to your views as "twisted" ... you cross the line wehn you make statements like "carrying the fight to the enemy" ...

you wrote:

Since radical Islam and it's followers have the STATED GOAL of forcing their religion on me and my family, I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. I will therefor support those who carry the fight to the enemy. I will die to defend my right to worship as I choose, to live under a government that allows the people to decide who shall lead, and where my freedoms are enshrined in a constitution that restricts the power of the state.


Saddam had always been an enemy of radical Islam ... and Saddam never attacked the U.S. and posed no threat, certainly no imminent threat, to the U.S. ... as a classic liberal, you should clearly understand the dangers of the "military-industrial complex" ... as a classic liberal, you should look beyond the stated objectives of the invasion of Iraq for the real motives of this administration ... we did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people ... and the Iraqi people certainly were not threatening your right to worship as you choose ...

What I view as twisted in your views is your apparent acceptance of the administration's "we are liberators" justifications for war ... and your acceptance that Iraq under Saddam threatened the freedoms guaranteed us under our Constitution ...

one last point ...

you wrote: my freedoms are enshrined in a constitution that restricts the power of the state.

again, you and I share common "classic liberal" values for the respect we have for the liberties guaranteed by the U.S. constitution ... but, if you are supportive of bush and his evil minions when you state that you will "support those who carry the fight to the enemy", then again, we are not on the same page ... we have seen our constitution dragged through the mud under this administration ... parts of the Patriot Act have already been rolled back as unConstitutional ... we've seen the buying of votes to pass the Medicare Act ... we've seen the stonewalling of investigations into Cheney's inappropriate deals with the energy lobby ... and we've seen stonewalling on 9/11 ... and we've seen stonewalling to cover up the "punishable by death treasonous conduct" relating to the outing of a CIA agent ... we've seen the loss of habeus corpus as "accused terrorists" are not even allowed to see a lawyer ...

so, when you speak of freedom and tolerance, you'll find great support for your views ... but when you support the madness of trying to impose a U.S. system on cultures we don't understand, and more sadly don't even want to understand, you've gone off the deep end ... the U.S. policy in Iraq is destroying this country, it's global credibility, our fiscal security, and our relationships with key allies ... and in the end, having destabilized Iraq by toppling Saddam, only civil war in Iraq will result ... no matter how well meaning some are in supporting the "democratization of Iraq", it will not happen ... and we will help recruit hundreds of thousands to the ranks of organizations intent on striking back at us within our borders ...

[Miles dEath]

77. War and who attacked who

"... and Saddam never attacked the U.S."

Neither did Germany, in WWI or WWII.
Neither did England during the Revolution.
Neither did Spain in the Spanish American War
Neither did Korea in the Korean War
Neither did Vietnam

So what?
Who hit who first is rarely who determines the combatants.

[welshTerrier2]

84. justification for war

well, i'm afraid your response left much to be desired ...

first of all, if you're going to quote me, please quote me accurately ... the complete statement I made about Saddam was "and Saddam never attacked the U.S. and posed no threat, certainly no imminent threat, to the U.S. ..."

the key point here is that the only justification given to the American people to support this war was a big pile of bullshit ... there were no weapons ... there was no threat ... students of the Middle East understand that Saddam had to bluff having weapons because he feared the threat posed by the Iranians ... bush NEVER HAD any credible evidence of WMD's in Iraq ... bush knew it was all just convenient lies ...

citing Vietnam as a justification for going to war in Iraq is most interesting ... we sure did save the world from all those falling dominos ...

your statement that "Who hit who first is rarely who determines the combatants." completely misses the central point which is that one must have a justification for invading a sovereign nation. The point I was raising, which you conveniently ignored, was not only that Saddam did not "hit" us first, but more importantly that he posed no documented imminent threat ...

btw, the only reason Iraq's leading clerics haven't called the Shi'ites into the streets in massive numbers is because bush has backed himself into a corner with his insane pre-announced turnover date ... this was a huge mistake ... it's very easy to see that all the Americans will be able to do after this date is step aside ... as Iraq demands "real power" and bush does not approve of the direction they take, what will he do? my guess is he'll have to abandon the Iraqis ... it seems inconceivable that he could take back authority once it was passed to the Iraqis ... and once power is held by the Iraqis, how will "U.S. appointed authorities" hold more power than the widely revered clerics ... the whole policy is ill conceived ...

[wtmusic]

88. Germany attacked 12 (count 'em, twelve) of our allies

by the time the US entered WWII. In all of the above examples (except the Revolution, an analogy which is so silly it is not worth mentioning, and the SA War--remember the Maine?) our allies were being attacked first. Every one.

You are very ethically challenged if you cannot see that striking first without provocation, under any circumstances, is wrong. In addition, you should do some history homework beyond 4th grade level if you're going to feel qualified to come on this board and challenge anyone. :eyes:

[Miles dEath]

90. Saddam's attack on our allies

"Germany attacked 12 (count 'em, twelve) of our allies"

Saddam attacked Kuwait who is one of our allies.


My point to all of this is that wars are most often started for reasons OTHER than who attacked who. The vast majority of wars are started for economic and political reasons. I'm sure that anyone who wanted to reach back far enough could come up with a reason or justification for someone attacking the US and then fixing the blame on XXXXXX.

HOWEVER - to do so is simply propaganda.

In my opinion, it is far better to look past the propaganda and look at the motivations of both sides. Determining the goals of the terrorists is easy - they have already publicly stated their goals. The terrorists want to impose their religion, the enslavement of women, their values, their way of life on me. That is not acceptable to me and I will do what ever I can to prevent that outcome. They want to make me a slave, and I will not become one. That is the essence of this war.

Did Saddam attack the US, no, but he did attack our allies, yes. Was Saddam a terrorist, a dictator? I hope you do not think he was some kind of great man worth adoration. A terrorist is someone who uses terror tactics to impose their will on others. That is just simply wrong. In my mind, no different than slavery.


------

Oh and before you start using the USS Maine as an example of Spain attacking the US, you might want to actually do some history research (I believe "beyond the 4th grade" was your term) and find out who the US Navy's investigation identified as being responsible for the explosion. Here is a quote from the findings:

"The court has been unable to obtain evidence fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons."

To blame Spain is simply following the "common think" of the day. What was the motto? "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain".

[IrateCitizen]

93. Who gets to make that determination???

A terrorist is someone who uses terror tactics to impose their will on others. That is just simply wrong. In my mind, no different than slavery.

That's not a sentiment that I'll express any disagreement with. But I would say that it's a pretty damned big (and self-righteous) responsibility to deem yourself worthy of judging what constitutes "terror tactics" and what does not.

For instance, the tactics used by the Shah of Iran in maintaining control over the people of Iran could be deemed as "terror tactics". However, the Shah was seen as an ally in the region due to his willingness to keep Iran's oil spigots flowing for US companies. IIRC, his predecessor, Mohammed Mossadeq, made the fatal mistake of advocating the outrageous premise that the wealth from Iranian oil actually go to the Iranian people. For that, he was deposed in 1953 in a CIA-sponsored coup, and the Shah was installed.

For another example, let's look at the election of Salvador Allende as Chile's President in 1970. Allende was a democratic socialist whose prime goal seemed to be making the Chilean economy more equitable for the Chilean people. He didn't advocate complete state control of the economy, but he did think that the proceeds from ITT's mining operations in Chile should predominantly go to the Chilean people. For this heresy, Nixon made the committment to "make the (Chilean) economy scream", and Allende was eventually deposed in a CIA-sponsored coup that ushered in Augusto Pinochet's reign of terror. The notable difference between Pinochet and Allende is that Pinochet held no plans to stop "free-market" exploitation of Chile's natural resources for the betterment of the Chileans themselves.

If these two instances are too much "ancient history" for you, perhaps we could look at the "President for life" of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Karimov's government has been routinely cited by international human rights groups as one of the worst violators in the world. Dissidents have been subjected to such brutal methods of execution as being boiled alive. However, the US remains mute on these gross "terror tactics". In fact, the US government's official stance toward the government of Uzbekistan has been a rather cozy one -- probably not having anything to do with the fact that Uzbekistan has readily accepted US troop bases on their soil.

For an even more egregious violation of human rights by a staunch US "ally", look at Turkey's campaign of ethnic cleansing against its Kurdish population. Or, look at Indonesia's treatment of East Timor from its annexation of the former Portugese colony in 1975 through to its eventual independence around 2000.

Simply put, the United States likes to speak of such noble pursuits as "democracy", "human rights" and "self-determination". However, when reviewing our record on these issues, we seem to more accurately follow the dictates of an aspiring empire, dealing in more straightforward power concepts. In fact, this was cited by George Kennan shortly after WWII, when he said that the time would eventually arrive when the US would have to abandon talk of these "higher concepts" and instead deal in straight power constructs.

Are you actually proposing, in the face of a history such as this, that the United States should be afforded the right to determine what constitutes a "terror tactic" and what does not? It would seem to me that there is NO nation on this earth whose hands are anywhere close to clean in this regard, which is the very reason for international cooperation through a sanctioned body (i.e. the UN). It may be far from perfect, but at the least it can help serve to keep some of the worst impulses of member nations in check, including those of the world's last remaining military superpower.

[Miles dEath]

94. ref: Who gets to make that determination

"....the tactics used by the Shah of Iran"
"....ushered in Augusto Pinochet's reign of terror"
"....at Turkey's campaign of ethnic cleansing against its Kurdish population"

No arguments from me that those are terrorist states performing acts of terror. I would even go further and point to Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc etc etc. Further, with tongue in cheek, the IRS's actions against US taxpayers and corporations.

{by gun point and pain of imprisonment and seizure of your property, the IRS will make you pay}

"Are you actually proposing, in the face of a history such as this, that the United States should be afforded the right to determine what constitutes a "terror tactic" and what does not? It would seem to me that there is NO nation on this earth whose hands are anywhere close to clean in this regard, which is the very reason for international cooperation through a sanctioned body (i.e. the UN). It may be far from perfect, but at the least it can help serve to keep some of the worst impulses of member nations in check, including those of the world's last remaining military superpower."

I'm not proposing anything. I'm ACKNOWLEDGING the current state, which is that any nation, ANY NATION, can call any other nation a terrorist and act accordingly. That is what happens today. My starting assumption is that nations are made up and lead by men. {men as in mankind} And all men have GREAT capacity for evil.

Starting from that point, I am saying that the use of fear and tactics which cause fear for the purpose of forcing your will on others is evil. Radical Islam has STATED they they will use any means necessary including terror {and have proved such} to impose their will on to me and my family.

That is something I will not allow. I will die to protect my freedoms and will also kill to defend those freedoms. I will not bow to what I believe is a false god. Not for the name sake of peace, not because the UN says I so, not because "we should all get along", NOT FOR ANY REASON. It is as simple as that. We {societies that value freedom and rights} are at an impasse with societies that wish to impose their will on us and take away our rights. This impasse can ONLY be resolved by force of arms.

Thus, back to the original question, I support the war and will and personally do support our troops. From sending care packages to shaking the hand of every member in uniform and thanking them for their service.

----
About the UN
I see the UN as having lost all credibility. If there is no single nation with clean hands, turning to an organization MADE UP of nations with bloody hands is the worst possible solution that I can imagine. Committees of men who have great capacity for evil, simply end up agreeing that evil is good. Witness SUDAN, think about it, SUDAN being on UN commission on human rights. Thats right - SUDAN who STILL practices SLAVERY!

[Only Me]

95. Miles dEath,

That is something I will not allow. I will die to protect my freedoms and will also kill to defend those freedoms. I will not bow to what I believe is a false god. Not for the name sake of peace, not because the UN says I so, not because "we should all get along", NOT FOR ANY REASON. It is as simple as that. We {societies that value freedom and rights} are at an impasse with societies that wish to impose their will on us and take away our rights. This impasse can ONLY be resolved by force of arms.

I appreciate your post. I do not agree with all of the thing you do, but I feel you believe them sincerely. Because of this I would like to ask you some questions. Things I am truly curious about.

I am sure you would agree, since the top paragraph is your from your post, that there is nothing wrong with having emotions like those.

I am a Christian, not like President Bush, but a Christian just the same. And honestly his misuse of Jesus name in the matters of war is a huge peeve of mine and I believe it utterly blasphemic.
However, I agree with your statement that I would not go against my beliefs for the sake of reason, force, or getting along.

I grew up Christian, as many Islamic grew up Islamic, Jewish Jewish, etc., etc.,. Part of living in the World Community, is that we have to live with the world. In other words, mutual toleration and understand the world religions are as devout to their faith as we are in ours. No one has EVER forced, or even Suggested that I be forced to change my Religion. So I didn't understand that part of your statement. Anyway here goes my questions...

1. (Rhetorical?)Is there someone in another country trying to force their government or religion on you?

2. Who is directly trying to take our freedom from us right now? How?
(Please do not state broad issues like terrorism, because there are to many countries suffering from terrorist to use that as our only excuse and we are supposed to have many policies here working on addressing that issue)

3. Should we just try and declare war on every country that has terrorist in it, or has totalitarian governments ? If so for humanitarian reasons? (or) For the reason of terrorism?

4. Should it be, like Pres. Bush had done, take matters into our own hands and give ourselves authority to police to the world? If so how to pay for this? And Who polices us if we get out of hand?

5. Do you agree that the wars of the past were fought partly because we did not have better military intelligence, intellectual sciences to create stealthier military for covert and other ops, as well as 21st century communications to better understand and collectively bargain with, so that we might have handled them in other ways?


6. Do you think Jesus Christ, knowing what he taught, how he lived and died, approves his Christians to be involved in killing, for any cause? if yes why.

7. In many of the worlds eyes, do you think to have a very publicized war in the name of Christianity (God Approves), is any different than Islamic extremist declaring war in the name of Jihad?

8. Does, questions 7, have a negative impact on the way the world
views Christians? Why or why not.



I know he gave us the options of free choice, but President Bush said that God approves this war. Please try to explain this one to me. (Please reference Jesus's teachings, NT or other scripture by the Apostles .) So I can look into it.


****Please excuse my typing & typos my hands are not cooperating with me today. ******

[Miles dEath]

112. My answers to your questions

1. (Rhetorical?)Is there someone in another country trying to force their government or religion on you?

Yes, Wahabbism (sp?) has the STATED GOAL of imposing sharia (Islamic law) on the whole world. The have through both actions (murdering thousands of US Citizens) and through their stated "press releases" show that they are more than willing to take any action to achieve their goals.

2. Who is directly trying to take our freedom from us right now? How?
(Please do not state broad issues like terrorism, because there are to many countries suffering from terrorist to use that as our only excuse and we are supposed to have many policies here working on addressing that issue)

see response to #1

3. Should we just try and declare war on every country that has terrorist in it, or has totalitarian governments ? If so for humanitarian reasons? (or) For the reason of terrorism?

Not all countries support radical or extremist Islam - even Islamic countries do not always support the terrorists. Those countries should be approached with economic tools to convince them to move to a more liberal society. Encourage democracy and economic freedom through the use of economic incentives, investments, etc. Also, pick your battles. Choose the battle ground so that what ever war you choose to fight is on the most advantageous terms to us and disadvantaged terms to our enemy.

4. Should it be, like Pres. Bush had done, take matters into our own hands and give ourselves authority to police to the world? If so how to pay for this? And Who polices us if we get out of hand?

Every person and by implication, nations, police themselves. It is called responsibility. Just as people must behave responsibly and do good instead of evil so must nations. "give ourselves authority..."??? We already have it. It is the God given right to protect our own lives, the lives of our families and even our property.

The Old Testament reveals that God recognizes and supports the validity of defense, and even the necessity of taking human life, both by nations and individuals. Those who would piously quote the Bible when it says "Thou shalt not kill", stating that all life is God-given and we have no right to take it with our own hands, fail to read the rest of the Bible. In the SAME book of the Bible God specifically ordered the execution of people for such crimes as blasphemy, sexual perversion, adultery, kidnapping, and murder. On the matter of self-defense, it is clearly stated in the Law that if a man finds a thief in his house at night, taking the life of that thief on the spot is an acceptable means of protecting one’s home and property (Exodus 22:2).

Even Jesus recognized the need for self defense. Luke 22:36, says: " Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it,and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one". What is the purpose of the sword other than to kill? I guess you could slice bread or spear olives but that would be rather impractical.

5. Do you agree that the wars of the past were fought partly because we did not have better military intelligence, intellectual sciences to create stealthier military for covert and other ops, as well as 21st century communications to better understand and collectively bargain with, so that we might have handled them in other ways?

Wars are fought for political and economic reasons. When two sides can not compromise, then the ONLY way to settle the issue is by force of arms. That is a statement of fact - reflective of the human condition.

6. Do you think Jesus Christ, knowing what he taught, how he lived and died, approves his Christians to be involved in killing, for any cause? if yes why.

See my response to #4

7. In many of the worlds eyes, do you think to have a very publicized war in the name of Christianity (God Approves), is any different than Islamic extremist declaring war in the name of Jihad?

I do not rely on others for my freedoms. I do not want, need or require their counsel. I will be a free man - period. Free to choose my religion, free to participate in my government, fee to engage in this very discourse. I do not care what the rest of the world thinks.

Secondly, I reject the concept that this war is a crusade for Christianity. It is a war against terrorist and has been stated as such. It is a war to prevent a small few from imposing their beliefs on the rest of the world. If some choose to view this in terms of Christanity vs Islam, they have that right.

8. Does, questions 7, have a negative impact on the way the world
views Christians? Why or why not.

The reality is that the rest of the world will view Christians as their culture and other pagan religions have brought them up to view it. Further, I do not care how they choose to view Christians. As long as they are not going around killing, maiming and murdering me and mine, we can co-exist. Granted, I will try and influence the rest of the world by educating them in freedom and Christian values. They will either choose to listen or ignore me. That is the market place of ideas. I believe that the message of Christ will stand on its own.

Many in the world already view Christians as sub-human. Worthy of no more than slavery. Many only respect a strong response. Personally, allow murders to go free, to let them continue their rampage of death not only makes Christians appear weak and thus our religion appear week, but it also makes us complacent in the following murders.

[Only Me]

116. Last post to you...

Thank you for your response. I appreciate all the effort you took in responding to my questions. You did not answer all my questions they way that I asked them, but you did give me direct answers on some. Your responses to my questions regarding Christianity, assure me I was correct in assuming that your religion is not the same as mine. I have belonged to Freewill Baptist faith for about 15 years. I am hardly radical or out of touch with common Christian values, not that you said I was. I go to fellowship with many different denominational churches in my area. I have been a Christian, in total for 23 years. My Grandfather who died at the age of 87, 6 years ago was a Holiness Preacher for 64 years. I was simply not taught to believe in the same way you do. I will not get deep into issues with you, your mind is already set and fully believes what it believes. I only ask you read the New Testament again, and talk to a trusted Christian counselor or better yet, pray for guidance and wisdom and forgiveness for failings. I do this all the time as we are supposed to.

The reason we don't live by an eye for an eye, as in the Old Testament is because of Christ's death. I think you confuse human nature with biblical events. We as humans want to protect what we love and hold dear, but as you say this is our condition,( with or with out Christ.) This is why we seek his forgiveness and divine counsel. I can assure you, if we kill even if to protect, we better fall on our knees in sincerity and ask for Jesus's forgiveness, because we are supposed to use the faith we place in him to guide us to the right decisions. He is the cure for our human condition. We are supposed say in all things, that HIS will be done. Not "ours." He is supposed to guide your life and decisions, not you guide your life and decisions.

Even Jesus recognized the need for self defense. Luke 22:36, says: " Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it,and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one". What is the purpose of the sword other than to kill? I guess you could slice bread or spear olives but that would be rather impractical.

No it wouldn't have been impractical at all. And if you read the context of this. You know this is not about Jesus condoning self defense by taking up arms.
The Apostles had no need for material things, as stated in the scriptures while they traveled with Jesus. He was talking about the coming of his end, by means of disloyalty. When they say there are 'Two' swords and HE says that is enough. Do you think he means two swords are enough to defend all the Apostle?
Again this whole section is about Judas betrayal of Christ and the sword of faith. He tells them to pray or they would enter into temptation, He even wakes them from after leaving the Mount of Olive, to say they shouldn't sleep, but to, again, pray for strength from temptation. He knew his time was short. His people needed spiritual faith and strength to get through the times ahead with out him. The sword was also probably used to help spur the coming of his demise. One of Jesus servants even asked about using the sword on the high priests servants, and cut off his ear with the sword before Jesus answered. Jesus healed the servants ear, and said "Suffer yea thus far". This was all to fulfill the prophecy of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

The Old Testament reveals that God recognizes and supports the validity of defense, and even the necessity of taking human life, both by nations and individuals. Those who would piously quote the Bible when it says "Thou shalt not kill", stating that all life is God-given and we have no right to take it with our own hands, fail to read the rest of the Bible. In the SAME book of the Bible God specifically ordered the execution of people for such crimes as blasphemy, sexual perversion, adultery, kidnapping, and murder. On the matter of self-defense, it is clearly stated in the Law that if a man finds a thief in his house at night, taking the life of that thief on the spot is an acceptable means of protecting one’s home and property (Exodus 22:2).

Reasons like these are why his son was sent to Die for the wages of Sin. Why he brought on the flood, and scattered the languages. God was not pleased with us, he regretted making man because of our cruel hearts and evil ways. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ changed everything!!! If God had continued to condone actions,like you spoke of, there would never have been a need for Jesus's life, death, resurrection and the coming. Please stop distorting my Religion. You pick and choose what parts sound convenient to your beliefs/causes. That is not they way of it.

"It is much harder to follow the road of a Christian than it is to follow mans road." ---in other words, faith is not always convenient in man's world. This is why the trip gets so bumpy sometimes.
The Bible speaks over and over about wars, man needing to be humble and not even speak evil of one another, not judging as if we have the authority to judge the world. I could reference these, be seriously there are numerous, numerous reference to these things in the bible. You are just fooling your self if you believe otherwise.

I thank you again for the discussion, I shall not post you again and wish you well, I sincerely mean that.



Ex 14:14 - The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

Democrat = Democracy Republican = Republic

[IrateCitizen]

109. Interesting contradictions, Miles dEath

I can see where you're coming from now, at least. Classical Hobbesian worldview that is embraced by most hard-core conservatives, best summarized in this statement:

My starting assumption is that nations are made up and lead by men. {men as in mankind} And all men have GREAT capacity for evil.

Interestingly absent from such a pronouncement is that, although I won't deny that men have capacity for great evil, they also have capacity for great good. Our world has produced both Hitler and Gandhi, Caligula and Jesus, Stalin and Mother Theresa. All human beings have the POTENTIAL for either side of the coin in varying degrees, and the world in which they live goes a long way toward establishing which side they will more readily embrace. To characterize it simply in terms of evil is highly inaccurate and misleading.

Starting from that point, I am saying that the use of fear and tactics which cause fear for the purpose of forcing your will on others is evil. Radical Islam has STATED they they will use any means necessary including terror {and have proved such} to impose their will on to me and my family.

They have? They have stated that their goal is imposing their will on you and your family specifically? I'm not saying that their crimes should be in any way excused, but I haven't heard their public pronouncements that they plan to take over the United States and turn it into a Muslim country. Rather, they want to take over the Middle East and turn it into an Islamic Theocracy, and see US presence on "their soil" as an affront and heresy.

Furthermore, what would you then say about the people in Iraq who do not want US troops on THEIR soil? The attitude of a great many Iraqis seems to be along the lines of, "We didn't like Saddam, we're glad he's gone. Now leave." But Bush has said that the US will NOT leave, so therefore he's trying to impose his will on others.

Consistency, my dear Miles, is important.

I will die to protect my freedoms and will also kill to defend those freedoms. I will not bow to what I believe is a false god. Not for the name sake of peace, not because the UN says I so, not because "we should all get along", NOT FOR ANY REASON. It is as simple as that. We {societies that value freedom and rights} are at an impasse with societies that wish to impose their will on us and take away our rights. This impasse can ONLY be resolved by force of arms.

Please define precisely what freedoms you are defending. Are you defending the rights of citizens to speak out against what they perceive as injustices committed by their government? Perhaps you could then explain why the Federal Government has embraced spying on dissenting citizens under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act. Perhaps you could explain why members of the Drake University (IA) Law School were to be brought before a Federal Grand Jury just for participating in a protest against the war, and how "freedom" is somehow protected by such actions.

Furthermore, you seem to be equating talk of a "false god" with talk of defending freedoms. I fail to see the connection.

I see the UN as having lost all credibility. If there is no single nation with clean hands, turning to an organization MADE UP of nations with bloody hands is the worst possible solution that I can imagine. Committees of men who have great capacity for evil, simply end up agreeing that evil is good. Witness SUDAN, think about it, SUDAN being on UN commission on human rights. Thats right - SUDAN who STILL practices SLAVERY!

Like I said, the UN is far from perfect. However, in the 20th century prior to the formation of the UN, the world experienced two world wars in which millions were killed. In the time since, the world has experienced no world wars. Your solution seems to be to allow all of these nations with bloody hands free reign, secure in the conviction that this will somehow result in something good. It's quite similar to the "free market" view espoused by conservatives and libertarians who actually posit the contradiction that men are basically immoral, and therefore should have the utmost freedom within the marketplace to practice their immorality, and that the end result will somehow be an increase in the common good.

Actually, I would like to express my appreciation for you reasonable responses. I just can't find much in them with which I can agree, because they all seem to be full of contradictions to support a pre-determined worldview. Even though you didn't come right out and say it, I also infer a strong undercurrent of American nationalism as the foundation to your viewpoints.

All things said, I appreciate your civil responses to this point

[Miles dEath]

113. Response and your contradiction

"...Interestingly absent from such a pronouncement is that, although I won't deny that men have capacity for great evil, they also have capacity for great good."

Agreed, but I was not talking about good. I was talking about evil and wanted to stay on subject.


"They have? They have stated that their goal is imposing their will on you and your family specifically"

The perhaps you have also not heard of Sharia - the imposition of Islamic law? How about the calls for Sharia in UK, Canada, Indonesia? Perhaps you would believe quotes from Islam's scriptures:

009.005 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an 5:17 “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.’”

Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

Qur’an 47:4 “So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”

Perhaps you would believe the calls for establishing Islam in INTERNATIONAL LAW! http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-04/30/article05.shtml



"Please define precisely what freedoms you are defending."

see the US Constitution and the Amendments.



"Furthermore, you seem to be equating talk of a "false god" with talk of defending freedoms. I fail to see the connection."

The freedom of religion. I will choose who, what and how I will worship. I will not have a false god placed before me and forced to worship.




"..Perhaps you could then explain why the Federal Government has embraced spying on dissenting citizens under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act."

I do not agree with all that is included in the Patriot Act. Particularly, the holding of citizens without access to lawyers and due process I find most troubling. I also find troubling many of the provisions of Patriot Act II, particularly those that allow the government to obtain information without the oversight of a court (warrant). As such I see much of the Patriot Act as violating the Constitution.

You seem to believe that all conservatives support the Patriot Act - that is a false assumption.



"It's quite similar to the "free market" view espoused by conservatives and libertarians who actually posit the contradiction that men are basically immoral, and therefore should have the utmost freedom within the marketplace to practice their immorality, and that the end result will somehow be an increase in the common good."

I do not see it as a contradiction that I created. Is see it as a choice moral vs immoral. That contradiction is the state of man. People will choose to either be moral or immoral regardless of what society constructs as norms.

I do believe that without responsibility, without the calling of religion to make man strive for a higher good, man will descend to a lower baser level of morality.

Those that choose strive to be moral will take responsibility for their actions and will police themselves. They will establish laws that discourage the immoral from such behavior. The vast majority of people will abide by the laws though that does not always mean they are moral.



"Like I said, the UN is far from perfect. However, in the 20th century prior to the formation of the UN, the world experienced two world wars in which millions were killed. In the time since, the world has experienced no world wars."

I disagree. You see there are and have been wars all over the face of this earth since the creation of the UN. They simply have not been as visible or as well coordinated as WWI and WWII. From the preamble of the UN charter - first sentence

"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and"

To that end the UN has been a FAILURE. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that the Korean War was a war fought by the UN. That does not even start to count the other wars since the UN was formed. Rwanda, Vietnam, the Middle East, India/Pakistan, Afghanistan, East Timor, Uganda, etc etc etc etc etc.

The problem is that the UN believes that peace is what is needed foremost in human nature. Peace at all costs. This fails to recognize that different factions often reach a point of impasse that can ONLY be resolved by force of arms. The UN would have been much better served if it starting goal was to protect freedom, not peace.

-----
Your contradiction

You would have the UN, a committee of nations, who are made up of men, who have the capacity for great evil, to trump or over rule the actions of a nation (US or any other) that seeks to defend itself and freedom. This leads to the opportunity to prevent good. And all that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Evil men do and will gain power in nations. These nations will then have a seat on the UN. Like Sudan being on the UN committee for human rights. You would then have an institution where evil is in control, where rights and freedoms do not come from Providence but rather come from what some group of evil men says you can have. Government can only do two things to rights and freedoms. They can either protect them, or destroy them.

We, the average citizen must constantly be on guard against those that would take them.

[wtmusic]

62. What do you feel about JFK's comment

in my sig line?

[Miles dEath]

78. JFK sig line

JFK was wrong. Simple as that.
See my previous post on who attacked who.

[daveskilt]

63. great post - keep them coming

welcome from another disenfranchised moderate. If bushco keeps moving the line to the right, soon we'll all be liberals!

:toast:

[DrWeird]

75. Were do you get your facts? Fox?

Radical Islam my ass.

[rumguy]

101. Using that logic

there are about 20 or 30 other countries we should invade, and pronto...

Let's see how much shit we can bury ourselves in, it'll be a straight up hoot!

[Maestro]

106. Wow! Once again...

thanks for the rational response. I'm a social liberal but quite moderate with other areas, but my nagging problem with Iraq is that Bush in pushing for this war, stated at first that Saddam must obey the rules of the UN, and I whole-heartedly supported that. Then in mid-stream almost he changed his tactic and started talking about WMDs which, come to find out, he (Saddam) had none. Now, he is talking about liberating Iraq from a brutal dictator.

His story just keeps changing as to why we are there. And I firmly believe that his intelligence was flawed or ignored. They had no idea that the Shi'ite muslims would react this way and really have no out strategy. Sure, 30 of June will see a "handover" of power but the military will still be there a long time.

And finally, do conservatives really see a more stable ME with Saddam gone, and has terror actually been dealt a blow? I fail to see how.

[popovfan]

80. haha I'll play

Don't beat me, alright? :)

Do you really think that the pictures of Iraqi prisoners are no big deal and that this won't come back to haunt our soldiers when they are captured in conflicts?

Yes they will hurt us and those who perpetrated these acts need to be court-martialed and thrown in military prison for a good, long time. I agree with I think it was either Bush or Rumsfeld who said today that these acts are "un-American." We should be better than that.

I'm not sure if it could get any worse regarding our soldiers captured in conflicts, but it will not help the war effort, since it seems taht al-Jazeera has virtually a monopoly on television coverage in Iraq. I don't see for the life of me why we don't use Voice of America's TV communications in Iraq. You're not taking other channels off the air, so there won't be a censorship problem, and it gets our perspective out there. I think that's just common sense.

Do you really think this war has been worth the cost?

Yes, for two main reasons:

1) Anytime that a dictator who brutalizes his own people and fills mass graves across his country is overthrown, is a good thing.

2) I'm not convinced that there wasn't any WMD. Think about it. We've discovered that Libya had WMD (some of the materials were found in a little turkey farm out in the desert), it's clear that Iran is purusing nuclear weapons, and terrorist acts go off all the time.

We know that Saddam had WMD as late as 1999 because UN inspectors actually went in there and found them, destroyed some of the materials too. We know that he used WMD against the Kurds shortly after the Iraq-Iran war. I find it then very hard to believe then that arguably the most senile and trigger-happy dictator in the region did not have even one vial of chemicals for one weapon of mass destruction.

My personal opinion is either they were ordered destroyed by Saddam while we were trying to cut a deal with the UN Security Council (heck that's what I would have done, it's only common sense), they were transported into Syria (I don't know where I heard this from but supposedly there was a news report that some Iraqis were caught transferring some WMD across the Syrian border recently) or they're somewhere buried in the desert. Remember, Iraq is the size of California, and a lot of those scientists still aren't talking because they're probably afraid that Saddam will somehow magically come back and take over the country (if I were in their position I might do the same thing. It's not a rational thought process but they've seen their countrymen tortured and brutalized for almost 30 years, so I'm trying to see this from their perspective here.)

It breaks my heart to see all of these dead soldiers in coffins come home, and I do think the hullabaloo over the Nightline program last Friday was just silly. I honestly feel however that this was the right thing to do, and in the long term everything will work out.

Now I probably won't respond to any replies because I know I'm really not supposed to doing this, so don't be too harsh :), and have fun hacking away.

[John_H]

82. Where are the real Freeper Trolls? All Chickenhawks?

[popovfan]

83. we're not all THAT bad, we just disagree :-) ()

...

[Ms. Clio]

87. Psssssst...did you hear that there are some new mass graves in Fallujah?

[Blue-Jay]

96. Saddam gassed his own people....

Oh boy, you guys are like a broken record. He killed Kurds with the tools that Saint Ronnie & George the Elder provided then with, you assbags.

Just come clean and admit it: You want to have a military presence in the Middle East. CONFESS!

Nobody gives a SHIT about the murderous dictators in Africa who are advocating genocide. They're killing their own people too, right? The difference is that they're not sitting on billions of dollars worth of oil. Admit it, you bastard. If it doesn't pad your pocket, you don't give a shit. Typical.

[libhill]

97. If the Bushies are so -

Concerned about taking out "evil dictators", why didn`t they go after Kim Il Jong and the North Koreans, the most murderous regime on earth (excepting the Bush regime)? Oh, that`s right- Korea has no oil, and besides, they could fight back and kick our asses. O.K., never mind.

[popovfan]

102. The idea of a preemptive strike......

....is so we don't have that North Korean problem. Yes, it is a little more difficult to invade a country if they are loaded with nukes and not exactly a peaceful regime.

At least in Asia we have stronger friends than we do in the Middle East (sans Israel), like Japan and the Phillipines. If Saddam had WMD (which I believe he had), or even had the capability to produce WMD at a moment's notice (considering that he gassed the Kurds and UN inspectors saw WMD in '99, I wouldn't trust him for an instant), it's better to take care of business now before we have a dictator with them in the middle of arguably the most instable region of the world. That could just lead to even more deaths than we have suffered in the occupation already.

[IrateCitizen]

108. Pre-emptive war = military aggression

The NK problem is largely of our own making. The agreement between the US and NK was a trade-off -- they would abandon their nuclear program and allow UN inspectors, we would help them get oil to meet their energy needs. In the late 1990's, the "Sunshine policy" started by SK president Kim Dae Jung was actually making considerable progress toward thawing relations between the two Koreas.

Bush came in in 2001 and one of his first acts was to chastize Kim for dealing with NK, and sabotage the sunshine policy. He also referred to Kim Jong Il as a "pygmy" and said that he "would like to overthrow him". In response, NK threw out the nuclear inspectors and announced that they were resuming their nuclear program. They also announced, following the US invasion of Iraq, that they would be willing to adopt the strategy of a "pre-emptive" strike against the United States in order to deter an invasion.

Nice little Pandora's Box that was opened up with that one. Just goes to prove once again that bellicosity and arrogance do not serve as a good foreign policy.

[ACK]

120. Ok some bad information floating out there in conservative country

1. It is not Al Jazeera but American held media interests that have a monopoly on tv comms in Iraq.

2. There are brutal dictators all over the world and it is hypocritical and self-serving to pick the ones we feel are good targets or "rich" targets to take out. Sudan's President is in the middle of a genocidal rampage and that regime supported terrorism I believe. Are we going to Africa to fight? Hell no. We certainly will not take our good buddy in Pakistan a military dictator exporting terrorism to India while handing over nuclear secrets to Iran and Korea. It is a load of hypocritical nonsense to talk about the grandness to taking out one dictator in a land of dictators especially when it is just an excuse for a policy of remaking the Middle East that goes back to the PNAC plan in 1995.

3. There were a number of experts including former weapons inspectors who were only convinced that Sadamm had WMDs because he acting like he did. But at the same time, there was proof for squat. You do not risk the lives of your citizens when there is no immediate threat and literally no real proof.

I cannot imagine calling the revelation than our soldiers our sons and daughters of the military were involved in torture and humiliation of prisoners a hullabaloo. It is a tragedy and one I am personally outraged over.

_

[conservative chick]

98. Shameful

The abuse of the Iraqi prisoners was nothing less than shameful and most certainly will put any of our POWs in jeopardy. Not that we weren't hated before, mind you, but these soldiers have effectively thrown gasoline on the fire.

And in particular, for this to occur in an Islamic, Middle Eastern country.....well, this just has a different level of impact. It showed a complete lack of respect for these prisoners and has endangered the lives of our soldiers over there.

I will note one positive thing, however -- there was a protest over this. In Iraq. A real, live, honest to goodness, from the grassroots protest. Not government sponsored or under the bootheel of Saddam. It was good to see the citizens of Iraq expressing their opinion -- something that would have cost them their lives not too long ago.

As for whether I believe the war has been worth the cost, yes. But I am more than well aware that it is a very hard argument to make to families that have lost a loved one in the line of duty. As someone who has more than one family member's name on the Vietnam War memorial, I know the cost pretty well.

It may sound silly, but I believe that freedom is worth it.

[libhill]

100. get real

this war in not about freedom, it`s about oil and corporate profits, period. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 , there were never any wmd`s, the whole damn war is a sham, based on lies and fabrications. And it has turned the entire Arab world against us. Impeach Bush now !

[TXlib]

104. Gaaaaah! There's two of us!

:crazy:

[libhill]

111. Two liberals in Texas?

Damn, that is unbelievable- oh, by the way- didn`t know I was snagging some one elses handle- my old `puter crashed, and I totally forgot my old password and I.D., had to get new ones. I apologize for the duplication-

[slinkerwink]

107. yes, but the weapons of mass destruction were fabrications made

by the Bush administration as a reason to invade Iraq. Scientists knew when Bush made that speech to the UN, that many of his claims about WMD were false.

Bush initially never went to war with Iraq because of the horrible things Saddam did to his own people. That was a secondary excuse that Bush came up with when there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found.

My conclusion is that the war was unnecessary, illegal, and unfounded with no mandate whatsoever.

[IrateCitizen]

110. Interesting comment on grassroots democracy

I will note one positive thing, however -- there was a protest over this. In Iraq. A real, live, honest to goodness, from the grassroots protest. Not government sponsored or under the bootheel of Saddam. It was good to see the citizens of Iraq expressing their opinion -- something that would have cost them their lives not too long ago.

In the immediate anarchy following the overthrow of Saddam, particularly in the Shia-dominated regions, there was a blooming of grassroots democracy. The clergy in many cities and towns organized local police forces to keep order, and organized local elections in order to form local governments based on a "citizens' council" model to handle day-to-day requirements. Interestingly, one of the prominent groups in these actions was Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers -- the same al-Sadr that has been branded as an outlaw by the CGA.

Of course, one of the first actions by the CGA was to utterly IGNORE these groups, because they were not sufficiently subject to American control, unlike the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and its head, bank embezzler (sentenced to 23 years in Jordan) Ahmed Chalabi.

Following these actions, there were protests throughout Iraq -- some of them during which US troops opened fire on the unarmed Iraqi crowds. So, I guess you're right -- they should be happy that they were able to protest without fear of being killed.

As for whether I believe the war has been worth the cost, yes. But I am more than well aware that it is a very hard argument to make to families that have lost a loved one in the line of duty. As someone who has more than one family member's name on the Vietnam War memorial, I know the cost pretty well.

It may sound silly, but I believe that freedom is worth it.

Is that what we're fighting for? Freedom? Freedom has become a cheap word, banded about with little concern over its true definition. Please tell me how OUR freedom is served by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Please also tell me how the freedom of Iraqis -- although severely lacking under Saddam -- is served by living under a military occupation and a puppet regime.

[Ms. Clio]

114. It does sound silly

And utterly lame, ignorant, and uninformed.