AMID all the talk about war with Iraq and the opposition to it, one voice has gone conspicuously unheard -- that of the Iraqi people. It is bewildering to most Iraqis how so many can claim to speak for them, both protagonists and opponents of the war. As an Iraqi-American and one who has remained in touch with the Iraqi people, I feel it is time to say a few words.

Firstly, let me address the anti-war group. Before 1990, the Iraqi people had one of the highest standards of living of any Third World country. They also had the highest number of college graduates of any country in the Middle East and enjoyed one of the best health-care systems in the Third World. This was because of an educational program with state subsidies initiated during the monarchy, which ended in 1958. Then, with two devastating external wars, countless internal purges, policies of genocide in the north and ethnic cleansing in the south, use of food as a political weapon and multiple other abuses by a regime that cared little for them, they became what they are now.

They feel indignant that a university professor has to supplement his income driving a taxi at night. When a father requires his own daughter to help feed her siblings through prostitution, they are all humiliated. When food rations are cut for the sake of weapons of mass destruction, building palaces and monuments, and exorbitant spending by the party elite, the Iraqi people are further devastated.

In a country where more than 200,000 persons annually disappear because of institutionalized killings, liquidations, weapons of mass destruction experiments on political prisoners, and out and out community demolitions, a war that could bring hope for a better life is but a small price to suffer. To many Iraqis, the calls against the war are nothing but another collective letting down by the Arab, regional and international community -- especially those enjoying democracy and freedom of speech in the West. It is bigoted to assert that Iraqis deserve no more than what they have, Saddam and his regime.

It is morally repugnant that people walk in marches across Western cities calling, essentially, for the Iraqi people to be kept in their collective jail with their tormentors. They remember how Saddam refused to accept the oil-for-food program for almost six years after the end of the Persian Gulf War. Those who have marched are either ignorant of the facts and need to educate themselves, or sinister creatures no different from Saddam and his institutionalized murderers, torturers and rapists. They will be remembered as people who called for maintaining the status quo for more than 15 million Iraqis under Saddam's rule.

To those who favor war, I observe: Iraqis see this war, if it occurs, as a war of liberation. They can look a short distance into northern Iraq and see how 13 percent of the oil-for-food money has converted 25 percent of Iraq's population into a well-fed, democratic and prosperous people. They see the infant mortality rates lower than they had ever been in the country, in its entire history, only a few miles to the north. Most importantly, they hope and dream of a democratic society where individual and group rights are sacred. They look for peace and prosperity inside their borders [so that] they can rebuild their country with the water, mineral, agricultural and professional wealth already present.

If there is a plan for regime change in Iraq, it must be for democracy. It must be for reconciliation. It must be for acknowledging the rights of all religions, faiths, sects and ethnic groups. It must be for the creation of a civil society. It must be for a unique federalism that will accommodate all of Iraq's peoples.

If the plan falls short of these essential goals, then war will not be of benefit to Iraqis. To be rid of WMDs, Iraqis must be freed from despotism, fear and dictatorship. Solutions advocating letting Saddam and his gang go into exile would further devastate the Iraqi people and prevent them from achieving their goals. This in turn would generate more trouble in the future, just as cutting half the cancer will not cure the patient. In short it would be another betrayal by the international community. It would also amount to a betrayal of the people footing the bill for such a war, the American people.

It has become self-evident that the world and the Iraqi people cannot live with Saddam and his regime. Nor can the world live with an [appointed] replacement.

The democratization of Iraq will show the Middle East that the West cares for it. The liberation of Iraq will have untold beneficial effects that will dwarf the stated objective of removing weapons of mass destruction. This is the only formula that will work for Iraq, the region and the world.

____
Al-Bassam, a medical doctor, is an Iraqi-American who lives and works in Houston. He is a member of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and a founding member of the Iraqi National Congress.

So, raining 800 cruise missiles in a period of two days, causing 500,000 casualities(according to the un) is the way to deal with Saddam Hussein. The "antiwar movement" you seem to misrepresent has observers in Iraq. The most known are Voices in the wilderness. The have been breaking the sanctions and bearing witness for years now. What about the depleted uranium that Iraqi doctors say causes cancer in children?

As to this idea that Bush is coming to liberate, we have a history of destroying a village to liberate it. Was Iraq better offf or worse off before the first Gulf War. The author states how the standard of living was higher before the gulf war than now. Yes. Saddam is a monster. However, we have enough blood on our hands! No more!

As to these people that call themselves Bush supporters, at what point will they admit that the bush administration is a disaster?

I don't believe I would have needed to speak with an indigenous and perhaps suffering element of the japanese population in order to have been opposed to dropping the A-bomb.
Dr Al-Bassam, how is it you conclude that people who are opposed to the war in Iraq means that they are in favor of the current Iraqi regime?
It seems that if advocates of peace are not accused of being Saddam-lovers, then they are miscontrued as being simple and ignorant of the issues. My belief is that raining bombs on Iraq begets more violence. That is the fundamental issue...consequences. The Bush administration has managed to create an atmosphere of suspicion and hatred, causing ordinary people ( with no monetary or power agendas) to rationalize the absurd notion that a war with Iraq will help restore peace on earth.
Finding solutions doesn't always mean picking up a weapon; there isn't too much difference between Saddam or Bush.

"He is a member of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and a founding member of the Iraqi National Congress"

Isn't the Iraqi National Congress waiting in the wings to take over Iraq? Could this be a campaign speech?

Those of us wishing for peace don't believe that bombing the shit out of Iraqi civilians is going to free them. It will kill them.

What if Bush is hitler?

...he's not...

...he's WORSE!

>> What if Bush is hitler?

That's ridiculous of course. Bush is a rock solid leader, an honest guy who says what he's thinking. Our government is not trying to put one over on us (that was the previous administration).

He's a goon, of the goosestepping sort....

If it were to be possible, I would retract my last post from the other day to this thread. What I was really trying to say, although it was an unfortunate and not well thought out choice of words, is that this metaphor of Iraq posing a danger like that of Nazi Germany is not a good metaphor. Look, Iraq couldn't win a war with Iran over 12 years time without our help.

Also, most of the world, based on a poll taken by time magazine in Europe, sees the US a the great threat to world peace. The argument we're making for attacking Iraq could be seen as a mirror image of what the argument makers present.

Anyway, I'm sorry I got sucked into that argument, because I don't see much to justify that metaphor. I should have chosen my words more carefully, because the language we use is important. Sorry.

At the time the U.S was contemplating dropping the Atom Bomb General of The Army (5 Stars) Dwight David Eisenhower urged Truman to not drop the bomb arguing it was not necessary as the Japanese were already on the edge of surrender and that it was a matter of days or weeks.
Certainly there was no need to drop the second bomb as the Japanese had already concluded that they must surrender.
Why Truman chose to drop the bomb has been a matter of speculation, but one thing that is not in doubt is that it was not necessary to win the war.
Even setting one off over Tokyo Harbor would have been more than sufficient a demonstration of the Hell to come if articles of surrender were not agreed to.

At the time the U.S was contemplating dropping the Atom Bomb General of The Army (5 Stars) Dwight David Eisenhower urged Truman to not drop the bomb arguing it was not necessary as the Japanese were already on the edge of surrender and that it was a matter of days or weeks.
Certainly there was no need to drop the second bomb as the Japanese had already concluded that they must surrender.
Why Truman chose to drop the bomb has been a matter of speculation, but one thing that is not in doubt is that it was not necessary to win the war.
Even setting one off over Tokyo Harbor would have been more than sufficient a demonstration of the Hell to come if articles of surrender were not agreed to.

President Harry Truman's statement:

"Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British Grand Slam, which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare".

These fateful words of the President on August 6th, 1945, marked the first public announcement of the greatest scientific achievement in history. The atomic bomb, first tested in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, had just been used against a military target.

On August 6th, 1945, at 8:15 A.M., Japanese time, a B-29 heavy bomber flying at high altitude dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. More than 4 square miles of the city were instantly and completely devastated. 66,000 people were killed, and 69,000 injured.

On August 9th, three days later, at 11:02 A.M., another B-29 dropped the second bomb on the industrial section of the city of Nagasaki, totally destroying 1 1/2 square miles of the city, killing 39,000 persons, and injuring 25,000 more.

On August 10, the day after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, the Japanese government requested that it be permitted to surrender under the terms of the Potsdam declaration of July 26th which it had previously ignored.

_____
Diogenes - Note the three day gap between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. There would have been no Nagasaki bombing if Japan had surrendered promptly. The decision to bomb Nagasaki was based on that foot dragging.

Toward the end of the war, the Japanese had come to rely on suicide attacks by Kamikaze pilots. In a short time there had been 5,000 Kamikaze attacks with another 20,000 'volunteers' waiting in the wings for their opportunity. The Japanese were fanatics, much like the Palestinian terrorists of today. They were willing to die for their emperor. The Kamikazes were very effective. The Japanese were of a mind to fight to the death rather than surrender.

Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would have lost thousands upon thousands of G.I.'s, in addition to Navy ships, etc.

They were squeezing the roots of their remaining
pine forests to provide fuel. Everyone was starving.
Atomic weapons are an obscenity.

obscenity of radiation and horror
versus the old fashioned sort horror with
the dead burnt and torn effects.

God, what a fuckin' moron you are BushBlower!

"The decision to bomb Nagasaki was based on that foot dragging. " Gee, there's as good a reason as any I have ever heard to kill hundreds of thousands of people!

"The Kamikazes were very effective." You fuckin' idiot! The Kamikazes were, far from being an effective strategy, an act of desperation, and a not very effective one at that. You mention 5,000 attacks...what damage did these attacks cause? Did they change the course of the war? Forget it, dimwit, I'll answer for you, no significant damage, no change to the course of the war. And how "effective" can it be if it cost you a moderately trained pilot and an aircraft each time? How many more of these did Japan have to offer at the time? The reason that the Japanese began using Kamikazes wasn't because they were effective, it was because they were short on experienced pilots...THEY WERE ALL DEAD!

Your assertion that the atomic bombs were dropped to protect the US fromt he peril of the Kamikazes is as laughable as the excuses now served up by your Dick-In-Chief. If you are going to make something up to support your arguments, at least make it remotely believable.

Japan dared to make an all-out war against the world strongest nation, which was 20 times bigger in terms of national power, but what was Japan's purpose of war? Did Japan really think they would win the all-out war? It is still a historical mystery which hasn't been studied enough. The substantial victory or defeat of the Pacific War were determined at the Battle of Midway, but Japan did not accept the defeat. Japan also did not accept the defeat at the Battle of the Phillipine Sea and even at Leyte Naval Battles, in which Japan lost all its navy power. And instead of accepting the defeat, Japan started to chant "Ichioku Gyokusai"(A hundred million honorable deaths) and started Kamikaze operations.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombs were the Western civilization's answer to Japan's civilizational challenge. Challenging the Western civilization had been Japan's long cherished desire since Japan's modernization(Meiji Restoration), and Japan realized how illogical it was for the first time when the Atomic Bombs were dropped. In that sense, the Atomic Bomb was the indespensable item for the victory of the Western civilization. If the Atomic Bombs hadn't been dropped, Japan wouldn't have stopped fighting until "A Hundred Million Honorable Deaths", or even if Japan had stopped fighting, Japan would have been looking for the opportunity of next Pearl Harbor attack. In many respectes, the Atomic Bombs had to be dropped.

The Kamikazes were remarkably effective. Nearly 4,000 Kamikaze aircraft managed to sink or damage over 300 Allied ships and kill or injure more than 15,000 Allied sailors. (source: http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/kamikaze.html)

Kamikaze operations intensified toward the end of the war. They peaked during the Okinawa campaign. Read the details here: http://members.tripod.com/~HawgheadToo/DIVINEWIND-2.html

The kamikazes operating during the Okinawa campaign did take a terrible toll on American lives and ships.  At the beginning of the suicide operations, there was stunned disbelief on the part of American sailors that other men would be willing to kill themselves in order to destroy them.  Because the threat was continuous, ship's personnel were forced to remain at battle stations for days on end.  Fatigue began to take its toll, on ships and men.  Sleep and food, often taken for granted, became precious to American sailors.
      
In summation, the Okinawa kikusui operation damaged 368 ships and sunk 32.  Suicide planes killed 4,900 American sailors and wounded over 4,800.  These were the heaviest losses incurred in any naval campaign in World War II.  Over 2,000 Japanese pilots lost their lives in the suicide attacks off Okinawa.

The A Bomb attack plans were being finalized as the Battle of Okinawa was being fought, and our military brass were contemplating the Kamikaze problem.

...lotta typin', but you're not saying anything...

FACT - Kamikzes were a desperate act by Japan that did nothing...can you read that BushBrain...NOTHING to change the course of the war. A completely ineffective...and I repeat, INEFFECTIVE use of resources, a response to the fact that they had NO EXPERIENCED PILOTS LEFT...any average idiot can see that, so your idiocy is obviously ABOVE average! If Kamikazes were as effective as you claim, why did the Japanese wait so long to use them? Answer: They are NOT as effective as well trained pilots. Your claims of A-bombs as protection agains Kamikazes is the worst sort of historical revisionism drempt up to support your FuckFace-in-Chief in his current delusions of granduer.

Have you no shame? Is no lie too base to repeat in blind defense of the indefensible?

ANSWERS: No. Yes.

http://members.verizon.net/~vze33wj3/

I guess the Kamikazes were effective enough to widow the wives of these guys.

The point of dropping the bombs was to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. To save American soldiers the task of invading the Japanese mainland.

The Japanese were given an ultimatum before the first bomb was dropped, and refused to surrender. Guilty in defense.

It never ceases to amaze me hearing things like:
"I guess the Kamikazes were effective enough to widow the wives of these guys",
"Japan dared to make an all-out war against the world strongest nation" or
"The Japanese were fanatics, much like the Palestinian terrorists of today. "

I would write something to show the idiocy of these remarks but it appears it has already been written and you're just not getting it. SO, my question is : Bush admirer and Big Bullet (oh , the comedy) would it be possible to know your upbringing and age?

You're not paying attention Pinhead. You're also dead wrong.

The Kamikazes were extremely effective. They knocked out 300 ships (a big number for any navy). They killed 15,000 American service men (another big number).

The Kamikazes became a central problem for American war strategists during the latter stages of the war.they had NO EXPERIENCED PILOTS LEFT...any averag

..yeah, right dickhead, they were so EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE that they did not change the course of the war one bit.

Oh, and nothing like inflating your numbers there buddy...you next post will probably have 1,500,000 soldiers killed and 3000 ships sunk...all this to defend the obviously indefensible.

....forget it, BushBlower...your credibility is null.

I didn't inflate any numbers Pinhead. The facts are the facts, and that's what I posted.

Please don't just brush aside the truth. When you're wrong, as you are, be man enough to stand up and admit it.

If you posted that sky was blue I'd go outside to check before agreeing...you lied...your numbers are inflated by at least 5 times...lyin' fuckin' lowlife douchebag.

...typical Bushite...when the truth does not back your claims...make something up!

One year we played Luton Town in the Zenith Data Systems Cup and said the crowd was 14,334. In fact it was only 9,117.

IT WAS 12,456 MR CLOUGH . DID YOU LOOK AT ME IN THE SHOWERS?. BIG I AM. LIKE A BABY'S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE.

The Gulf war's intent was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, not remove Saddam. And all of you who said we would desamate Iraq were obviously wrong. However, notice how we can freely express our views on our like or extreme dislike of our president. In Iraq any such statements would put you and your family to death, and we are so used to doing it, we don't see the irony in our complaints. I am for the war and support our troops. People all over the world should have the right to speak freely among other things. Just think what it would be like if tomorrow, someone came along and took your freedoms away, and tortured your people, don't you think it would be worth it, to have someone come and help you to defend your rights as a human, even if that meant dying? I know that I would. So be thankfull, and even if you disagree with the war, support the soldiers who are fighting for our and Iraq's freedom from terror. Even if you don't think these are the reasons that we are at war, the soldiers do, and they are sacrificing themselves for that cause. SO be sure to celebrate them when they come home, for they are sacfricing for you whether you like it or not.

I expect that people under dictators around the world have a very low opinion of sanctions.
However many would support war.
Few people would say we want to overthrow the government ..but we dont want any help.
at the same time there will always be a certain percentage who are also willing to fight to death to keep an invader out. It may even be by far the minority and yet it will still make a country hard to capture.

Sanctions dont seem to lead to revolution often.. infact nothing much leads to revolution anymore. even marxism just leads to prolonged guerilla battles. Maybe revolution is no longer possible.. which may be a good or a bad thing.

It is fairly obvious that dropping bombs is not moral or correct and that something has to be done about Saddam, but to those who fully oppose this war, all you say is that Bush shouldn't be doing this what is your solution to this problem. I do not know enough to judge what Bush has done do you?

error

Can you say: EUPHORIA!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2931475.stm

Right now coalition forces are rolling through the very
center of Baghdad. There was just an image
broadcast to the world of two Iraqis holding up a big
sign that read:

GO HOME HUMAN SHIELDS

NONE of the civilians are rising up against our troops.
The only uprising that's being seen, as we speak, is a
group of Iraqis who are tying ropes to the 25 or 30 foot
tall statue of Saddam in the center of town, and they're
attempting to pull it down.

This is the day that I've been waiting for. The day that
all of the doomsayers are forced to eat their own
words.

tching Iraqis clamoring for a turn at a sledgehammer to help bust up the base to a Saddam Statue in downtown Baghdad! They want to be free!

And it will never be full.
Enjoy your stay my friends, I'll see you all very soon.

Hey, asshole...you can hate the fact that I'm right, all
you want. But try selling your crap to the parents of all
of those Iraqi children who had been locked up, some
as long as five years, because they refused to join the Baath military. Try telling them after seeing the video
of US forces opening the gates and releasing all of
them to their waiting parents.

Your scathing response is indicative of the fact that
you have absolutly no relevant argument to make.

The Iraqi people do NOT hate us. They are jubilant
that our forces are there.

You can save all your words for our time.
See ya.

I'll take that response as a concession.

My argument with you is finished.

I win.

>Enjoy your stay my friends, I'll see you all very soon.

Actually Sheepdog, we've grown more than weary of you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

error

wow
such perception
wow
By the way, I am happy the we you speak of
are the ones I am addressing.
Bite me.

Oh Satan, the one to who we adore. Please help us.

We have been doing your bidding for many months now. We marched in the streets, we carried banners, we shouted "No Blood For Oil" just as you asked us to do, but to no avail. The forces of good and freedom have again won the day. When, oh Master Satan, will you lend us victory in our efforts to overcome good?

This must seem like a THEME PARK to people like Stain....

BASRA, Iraq (AP) -- Iraqis showed journalists a white stone jail where they claim Saddam Hussein's secret police for decades tortured inmates with beatings, mutilations, electric shocks and chemical baths.
The jail, known as the "White Lion," was charred and half-demolished Tuesday after two days of bombing by British forces fighting for control of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city.
People taken behind the jail's sandstone facade usually did not come out, residents said.
Hundreds of Iraqis came to see the now-empty jail, according to British press reports. Relatives of missing inmates checked fingerprinted files and lists of names found amid the fallen bricks.
"It was a place of evil," resident Hamed Fattil said.
Hamed told British reporters that Iraqi police locked him and his two brothers in a jail dungeon in 1991, and that he was freed after eight months but his brothers were still missing.
"They used to strap a leather cord around our head, hands and shoulders and hoist us two feet off the ground. Then they would beat us as we hung there," Hamed said.
"They did unthinkable things -- electrocution, immersion in a bath of chemicals and ripping off people's finger and toenails."
The jail basement was a warren of cells, chambers and cages where the ground was strewn with an insect-eaten gas mask and bottles, according to Associated Press Television News footage.
For the cameras, two men re-enacted how jailers allegedly tortured prisoners.
One man, hands tied behind his back with a rope attached to a hook on the ceiling, bent over while another man pantomimed hitting him on the back and the face with his hands and a long, white rod.
One man shuddered while the other gave him a pretend electric shock.
Outside the jail, a man showed APTN his mangled ears.
Hamed took British reporters into a yard behind the jail into a set of white boxy cells, surrounded by red wire mesh with a low, wire roof.
He said some of the cells, which had red doors with large bolts, were used to hold women and children. He also said hundreds of men were kept in a single cell about the size of a living room, which had one rusted grate window.
Between the men's and women's cells was a long mesh cage. Hamed said here, jailers pressed prisoners against the mesh and squeezed hot irons against their backs or threw scalding water on them in front of other inmates.

I have nothing to do with this.
You monkeys always find ways of feeding your greed.
You don't need me.

And where is the Saddam Zyklon B with the ovens and gas chambers?

WE ARE FREE!!

Sign seen being held by an Iraqi in downtown Baghdad:

"HUMAN SHIELD GO HOME! U.S. WANKERS!"

See? Even the little brown people know that the humans shields are more concerned with supporting Saddam than they are with the Iraqis.

Excuse me, but.........

All I can see is a US Service man vandalizing a city already plundered by bombs. Unless that person climbing up to destroy the statute is an Iraqi in disguise, I sure as hell do not see and joyous Iraqis helping him do some unnecessary damage to a town that has already been damaged enough.

So...when you get a picture that shows what you claim this to show, please post it. Until then, your claims seem to be rather unsubstantiated.

Here you go then...

>Unless that person climbing up to destroy the statute is an Iraqi in disguise, I sure as hell do not see and joyous Iraqis helping him do some unnecessary damage to a town that has already been damaged enough.

Then turn on your TV, wanker. Even al-Jezeerah is showing the Iraqi people dancing on the statue after it falls, dragging the head of the statue through the streets, the burning and tearing down of other symbols of Saddam. I know the thought of a dictator being cast from power is a real disapointment to all you leftist and anarchists, but quite frankly I'm not seeing the Iraqi people seeking the acceptance of the the Indymedia crowd or even caring about what you think.

Gee, not caring what you leftist/anarchist think. That kinda goes hand-in-hand with realizing that you are FREE!!!!

Saw it all on TV, buddy. The Iraqis started sledgehammerin' on that joker before the Marines lent a friendly hand.

Believe it. Heard it was on Al-Jazeera, too. So it has to be true, doesn't it?

Afterwards, the locals took the head off the statue and drug it around the street, riding it like cowboys.

Face it: You were wrong. Iraq is free.

Admit it, if you've got a pair.

Excuse me, but where the fuck did you get that idea. Oh, yeah, freedom through death. Duh....now I get it.

Get a clue, davie, they are NOT cheering us. Listen to all the media and get informed.

The only thing dying is Saddams regime.

Cry Baby Cry,
Make Your Mother Sigh,
She's Old Enough to Know Better,
So Cry Baby Cry.

"Excuse me, but where the fuck did you get that idea. Oh, yeah, freedom through death. Duh....now I get it.

Get a clue, davie, they are NOT cheering us. Listen to all the media and get informed.
"

Hell, you've been soooo wrong for soooo long now, you might as well keep it up. Keep insisting that they're not cheering us and maybe they'll stop for you. LOL.
By the way, I have a bridge to sell you.

...apologists for death. Of course NBC, ABC, CBS, and the rest of the Propaganda Machine will never show you the little boy with both arms blown off by his "Liberators" or the little girl in purple with her foot blown off by her "Liberators". Don't worry kids Uncle Sugar will buy you new ones. We're so expansive - new arms and legs for all - of the survivors.

Another image you will never see in the Propaganda Press is the lingering deaths from Depleted Uranium, the birth defects, the carcinomas, the lung disease, people slowly dying by inches as Uranium Poisoning takes it's toll. The families massacred, grieving Iraqi Parents and Children. These are not the good wholesome Propaganda Images that will be paraded across the evening "news". After all people might draw the wrong conclusion. "Maybe War is not the best way to settle international problems?" Couldn't have that - bad for the Carlyle Group's bottom line. Don't want them to start thinking for themselves. No, "feelgood" is the order of the day - let's sweep all those true pictures under the carpet. And "LET THE PUMPS BEGIN"!

Two Evils do not make a Good. That the Iraqi people are free of Evil Dictator does not mean that they are free. There are no reports asserting anything of the kind. They may wind up with a less brutal Authoritarian Machine in control but they will not be "free". If they cheer the demise of an evil dictator does not mean they LOVE their "Liberator". Time will tell - I would like to be optimistic but with the small, venal, and evil men controlling our government running the show I do not expect the best interests of the Iraqi People will be very high among their priorities.

Oh, okay. I admit it. The Iraqis riding on the tank as the statue was being pulled down were trying to stop it.

The Iraqis waving the American Flag were waving it vigorously in hopes it would catch fire.

The Iraqis dragging the head around were looking for a donor statue to graft the head on before it died.

The Iraqis tieing a rope around the statue's neck just thought it needed some neckwear to look "snazzy".

The Iraqis banging on the statue's base were trying to set up an anti-American subsonic repeller field.

And I admit one more thing: You have an amazing ability to ignore the incredibly obvious.

These are your reactions had you been in these historical situations:

THE TITANIC: Come on, guys, it's just a toilet overflowing!
CUSTER'S LAST STAND: Gee, General, they're friendly! See? Here come the Ceremonial Arrow of Brotherhood!
PEARL HARBOR: I'm sure they're just here for the surfing...
THE IRAQI LIBERATION: They hate us!

Get a clue yourself. History will record the American Left as being on the side of repression and tyranny. Thank God , for Iraq's sake, you were not successful.

...all those grateful corpses.

Diogenes - That the Iraqi people are free of Evil Dictator does not mean that they are free.

Clinton - That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

>>Imagine all those grateful corpses.<<

What drew me to liberalism was the optismistic outlook of the members.

The liberated and the one awaiting liberation.
In the mean time there is pain horror and grief.
Evil bastards. Who's next?

"The Iraqis waving the American Flag were waving it vigorously in hopes it would catch fire. "


This just made my day.

...that none of the Troll Scum address the main point of my post above. The most they are able to attempt is parody - and rather Sophomoric at that. That they have no valid counter arguments is proven by there abscence of reasoned comment. The most they can manage are hollow school yard taunts. Children.

Just move (if you can) your ass, side to side.
the flag jammed up there will move also.
It just means you'll have to walk that way all day.
Enjoy.

Hey, Shit for Brains, post one photo (which is not doctored) which shows an Iraqi waving a US flag. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOU MOUTH IS, CUNT.

You had a point? Oh, there it is...

Hey! You mean people get hurt in war? Holy crap! Who'd a thunk it! Did you figure that out all by yourself, Diogenes? Man, yer SMART!

Gimme a break, Dio. News is business. Showing photos of little kids maimed won't sell Cheerios and Buicks. The Government has nothing to do with it. It's your favorite pet horror, the free enterprise system at work. When you overthrow the Constitution and set up the Worker's Paradise, I'm sure you'll want a say in what's broadcast, though.

You still believe that DU nonsense? The World Health Organization has blown that out of the water. It's a non-issue. The increased cancer rate and birth defects in iraq are most likely caused by chemical weapons residues. But yer ol' buddy Saddam won't let anyone in to do some firsthand research. Swell guy, isn't he?
Furthermore, depleted uranium simply does not cause most of the illnesses so breathlessly ascribed to it by the Left. There is no increase in cancer and birth defects anywhere else DU has been used...like in Kuwait, which saw more DU use than Iraq.

You're right on one (just one!) point, though...two evils do not make a good. Thing is, one of the situations you're describing as "evil" isn't. This war is not evil, no matter how hard you wish it to be.

"Time will tell..." Indeed it will. I'm man enough to freely admit if I am wrong. Are you? Or will you not BE wrong, no matter what the truth is, so you won't have to ADMIT you're wrong?

Time will tell.

"...that none of the Troll Scum address the main point of my post above. The most they are able to attempt is parody - and rather Sophomoric at that. That they have no valid counter arguments is proven by there abscence of reasoned comment. The most they can manage are hollow school yard taunts. Children."


LOL. You flatter yourself. Who are you, for anyone to respond to, other than to mock you? You're incapable of seeing anyone else's point of view so discourse is out the window. When refuted you immediately claim that those arguing against you must be brainwashed or "trolls" or, worse yet, "Psyops". LOL. You're nuts. You have no relevant arguments.
You're just a bitter crazy guy in a bedroom somewhere in LA. Face it. You're a figure of fun.

Thank you, thank you...I'll be here all day...

BTW, you really got one on Dio: "You're just a bitter crazy guy in a bedroom somewhere in LA. Face it. You're a figure of fun."

Yee-haw!

You hear that sound?

Listen closely...
It's the sound of a people being freed.

You can barely hear it over the sound of the Left whining about how they're not irrelevant.

...are the screams of pain coming from the injured Iraqi...and the screams of joy coming from the U.S. because we liberated their oil.

Get a clue, asshole.

BTW: Could one of you and you Nazi, Freeper Kobe cohorts please post a pic of those "flag waving" Iraqis who are celebrating their liberation? The pics of the crowds (no flags and no smiles) storming a statute is not quite making your point.

Get the tofu out of your ears and turn down the Streisand CD.

What you're hearing the end of a tyranny...and with it, the end of the credibility of the Left.

"...asshole." "...Nazi..." LOL! I've almost got another Leftie Bingo! Don't let me down, i know you can come up with some more buzzwords!

What's the point of me posting a picture? Would you believe it? No, you'd start yelling "Photoshop!" I'd rather just make fun of you.

This is a target-rich environment.

You seem so one-sided and unwilling to listen. At least a lot of the people on the other side of the issue post thoughtful messages. You just seem to insult everyone and then seem so surprised when people give you back what you are dishing out. How about using your brain and not your mouth for a bit. You are turning into a joke just like Eric (Simple Simon?), Bush Admirer, Fresca, etc.

Stop stomping for Bush and discuss the facts. Bush is a horrible president. But let's talk about the real issues of the Iraqi War. I am stiff unure as to exactly "why" we are there. I have not seen the pictures of the flag waving Iraqi crowds. All I have seen are some very sad and ugly pictures of an American Marine plastering a flag over the statute of Saddam. I have what Saddam stands for, but I would think that the U.S. could at least act with some dignity. What a cheap shot.

"Stop stomping for Bush and discuss the facts."

Let's discuss them. What's first?

and here

here

here as well

If you're still dying for the flag, you'll have to wait. Or look for yourself.

...some thoughtful posts here, on both sides of the argument. However, you have to admit there's an awful lot of junior-high profanity and insults here as well.

Am I unwilling to listen? No, it just that I've heard it all before, and there's nothing new here.

And when any argument from the right is presented (no matter how well it presented), it's met with, for the most part, derision, insults, profanity, and non-sequiturs.

So, what's the point? If my attempts at reaonable discussion are not returned with an attitude of healthy debate, then, by golly, I'm gonna have me some fun.

Let's roll!

Good good. Now time for the American APOLOGY.

I'm sorry we didn't invade France.

Signed,
America

"I'm sorry we didn't invade France.

Signed,
America
"

You still got it!!

Dear Iraqi People,

When people like "The New X" were on the street protesting and appeasing Saddam, we did not kill them. Our apologies. We will be remeding that soon.

The American People

That's an oversight I'd be happy we rectified.

Oh, wait! We already invaded France!

...when we saved their ungrateful behinds from the Nazibots.

I gotta hand it to the French, though...they've always been there when they needed us.

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

and women kissing our bashfull GI'S
(quick round up some women)
This is all so lovely.

STILL WAITING FOR A US APOLOGY FOR ITS ROLE IN KILLING THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS DURING SADDAM'S REIGN OF TERROR (WHICH THEY WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTED WITH BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS OF COURSE)

FUCKING DUMB AMERICANS

I SPIT AND SHIT ON YOUR SICK AND TWISTED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE AND FREEDOM

Enlarge this photo those of you who have any software that does this and pay particular attention to the left hand of the gentleman on the right of the picture. This is another doctored photo.

error

-- STILL WAITING FOR A US APOLOGY FOR ITS ROLE IN KILLING THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS DURING SADDAM'S REIGN OF TERROR (WHICH THEY WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTED WITH BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS OF COURSE) FUCKING DUMB AMERICANS

Either the USA is smart and evil (they have a devious plan to control the world which is so convoluted it defies explination. -- OR they are smart and good ( basically what republicans believe).. OR they are stupid and good.
They cant be Stupid and Evil because if they were then their detailed conspiricy wouldnt exsist and it wouldnt matter anyway.

By the way I appologise on behalf of the USA for not taking out Sadam earlier.. but these pesky liberals kept on getting in our way.

By the way USA's official support for Iraq was more of a "supporting its political and financial stability" nature Technically the USA was supposed to be neutral and it probably wasnt very interested in seeing a total Iraqi victory either. I wonder if the world would have been better if Iran had totally defeated iraq and absorbed it into its islamic republic.

...stupid. There is nothing more obvious than the open "conspiracy" of the Bush Crime Families long pattern of dealing with dictators and mass murderers.

Saddam was taken out not because he was a bad guy but because he was "too indepent" and was not doing what the big boys want. Heaven's he was going off of the Petrodollar standard. Bad for the Fed. Their Fiat Money is held up by Oil.

Scootie their is nothing more obvious than the foul motivations of YOUR FUHRER.

Either you are too stupid to see it or are a willing sycophant. Which is it?

No doubt there would be no anti-US feeling in the middle east if the US had simply chosen not to meddle there in the first place. im talking about from the 60s onwards

For the photos of cheering crowds
that don't have armed troops in the background
any WMD or any reason why we just went in and
blew the shit out of thousands of civilians.
It couldn't have been the oil....
Evil assholes.

You go back and forth from rational to venom filled post. You constantly are "spitting" on the "stupid" americans. As we all know wealth and power have always fallen into the lap of the stupid throughout history. You decry us as stupid yet on another thread you call for the US to provide the palistinians with a "huge" aid package to help the formation of their new state. It's really not congruent that a stupid state would normally be able to furnish this kind of help. Try to control your arab anger if you can. I know it's tough but it's the only way you will progress. I would be angry too if i knew a country the size of a pack of matches could single handedly bring the entire football field surrounding it to it's knees in a week. i would feel irrelevant and would probably resort to anger as quickly as you. Remember honey catches more bees than vinegar.
Patiently awaiting the title of stupid

As a French Patriot I can honsetly say that the USA is Fucked up. You imperialists are interfearing with our oil contracts with Saddam and that in turn hurts the French population. Your greed is only surpassed by your arrogance you should be ashamed taking our oil money we demand you get out od Iraq now so we can take the spoils of the illegal war you waged against our will.

Americans are more greedy than any other national people. So get out and let us fuck the Iraqi people out of the oil.

error

But damn it, I was too RICH to die!

Bush is Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This article is intellectual camel shit. It misrepresents the opposition that's been voiced against the war. It consistently juxtaposes extremes, arrived at through distortion, as reality.

It is inherently illogical as a whole and in its parts. Here's one example: "To be rid of WMDs, Iraqis must be freed from despotism, fear and
dictatorship." A new democratic government does not guarantee that Iraq will not possess WMDs in the future. In fact, there are numerous countries who have these weapons or are pursuing them, and some of them are democracies. Some people appear to have a pristine vision of what democracy will look like in Iraq. Most likely, it will be far from it. Apart from this, it may be the case that Iraq has actually been rid of WMDs. None have been found yet. Yet this statement is expressed as truth. As certain as a mathematical equation. The whole article is like that.

Why do you people publish such crap? Judging from the diction of this article, the author and George W. Bush have been 69ing each other.

...alternative, Diogenes.

You're an idiot.

I vote for #3. Show of hands?

One, two, three...okay, that's everybody.

You ARE an idiot.

"It consistently juxtaposes extremes, arrived at through distortion, as reality."

Like "Bush is Hitler", huh?

For those not acquainted with Godwin's Law, here it is, from the Jargon File

Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

I submit Nick's corollary to Godwin's Law:

Godwin's Law applies to discussions in other electronic forums, including, but not limited to: IRC, E-mail, Web bulletin boards, etc.

Further, in addition to mention of Nazis or Hitler, the probability of one of the following phrases being used approaches one:

Get over it
Grow up (or Get a clue)
I feel sorry for you
You are blind
Godwin's Law applies to these cases as well; the thread ends, and whoever used the phrase has automatically lost the argument. It should be noted that some discussions start out this way, and those should be considered unworthy of response from the beginning.

I agree!!!!
Ever watch CNN, MSNBC or FOX,
thier always comparing Saddam to Hitler,
and i wont even mention what GW said........
You ARE blind.

...Al Jazeera, Al Guardian, and your other favorite totally unbiased media outlets.

I thought this was a comparative analysis of persons or organizations
pertaining to __________ = Hitler
I was just showing you a different multi-logic picture
relating to your rant above.
I guess you neo-conservatives can never answer a question though.

Godwin's Law only applies to interpersonal communication in cyberspace.

However, since you brought the media into it, I made mention of a couple of the terrorist-apologist sources who constantly refer to Bush as Hitler.

I guess you Liberals can never recognize the answer to a question. Do I need to use smaller words?

only in cyberspace only eh?
are the rules of logic somehow different when applied to the written text?
Funny how you see things only one way
In the way that supports your side of the argument
ps
just cuz i "knock" the US media and GW's consistent use of the "Hitler" clause
doesnt mean I "support" what al jazeera says either
i look for multi logical news that presents BOTH sides of an issue with out using
logical fallacies such as "ad hominem" and "faulty analogy" and "strawman".
just like
the things you use in your arguments
SuCKa!!!!!

...write Godwin's Law (but it is pretty cool).

So don't harp on me about its applicability.

"ad hominem" and "faulty analogy" and "strawman"

Two more and I get "Flailing Leftie Logic" bingo!

Whoo hoo!

...I see you are up to your usual pungent droolery.

Why is it the Left seem to think it necessary to make fun of the handles of those they disagree with?

Why is that, Carmina?

If it makes you feel better about yourself, I'm glad I could help you out.

Well Doc, here are a few thoughts for you to ponder.

I'm Sorry your country folk are having a hard time, but why is it our job to fix things for them.

Iraq is surrounded by extremely wealthy countries and/or countries with huge populations. If Saddam is such a bane to the region, why don't they combine these resources, create a huge, well equipt army and do away with him?

It's pretty clear that we don't care what the major powers of Europe think about us why should we care what the Iraqi people think?

It seems that you are of the mind that it's OK if much of the rest of the world views the US as war mongers as long as we put our troops in Iraq.

Since you are here basking in the freedom of the US while your countrymen carry on the struggle at home and at the same time, you urge me to send my countrymen to "liberate" your country for you, I find your case a bit thin.

Finally, with a man (Ahmad Chalabi) who is a convicted felon in flight from justice as its leader, I have to question the motives of the IRC and its desire to put itself at the top of the list in Iraq.