Salty

iTrader: (14)

But how are common Iraqis supposed to be heard? How are they supposed to get their message out when they're under Saddam's thumb and fear death for themselves and their family if they go against the grain? How do you do this in a dictatorship without loss of sleep? What are we supposed to do? Wait for a message in a bottle from some shiite dying on a beach to reach Washington?

Here's the way I see it. Democrats and liberals are okay with US military force if it's done by a Democratic President or in conjunction with the UN or NATO. If it's a combination of the two then it's free-reign - certainly a Democratic President accompanied with NATO or the UN isn’t capable of error. And even better if they decide to coin it as a "peace keeping" operation. You guys eat it up like fresh apple pie if all three criteria are met!

We did it with Somalia and Kosovo like it was cool. And had Clinton not voted against intervention of Rwanda while in direct control of the UN at that time, then every Democrat and Liberal would have welcomed the idea without question. It would have been another "peace keeping" mission for humanity that would have been justified on the possilbe loss of life. Them asking us to intervene wouldn't have been a factor! Instead, nearly a million were slaughtered within months. Is this what you would of rather have prolonged in Iraq? Because Saddam and his cronies were halfway to that figure.

But had Bush sent troops into Somalia, Kosovo, or bombed hard targets years at a time with the help of NATO, then he would have earned the same legacy from you people that he has now. Everything can be traced back to southern good ole’ boy hatred.

dub2w

You miss the main point in regards to Iraq. We attacked another nation pre-emptively, skirting international laws and procedures. If Iraq had indeed posed an imminent threat to the safety of our country, then I would have agreed with flipping off the UN and protecting our country.

However, we were all lied to. There was no imminent threat: no WMDs, no mobile nuclear weapons stations, and very weak ties between Saddam and Al-Queda.

If this exact war had been waged by a Democrat, people would be up in arms just as much. Look no further than LBJ, a Dem who was derailed because of the quagmire in Vietnam. If Kerry had pulled all this ****, his a$$ would be grilled just the same. History -- not conjecture -- validates this claim.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Looks like they might let the people decide with a vote. I'm sure this time round the Assoc. of Muslim Scholars will be singing a much different tune.

lojasmo

On the upside, Islam is now the official religion in Iraq. That's good, right?

:

dub2w

Ive gotta bring this thread back to its roots. Anybody? Bueller?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I honestly believe that was the biggest factor. Anybody who claims oil doesn't understand what's happening with the constitution right now. The biggest factor the Sunnis fear is that they aren't going to be able to get their hands on the oil money like the Shiites and Kurds (oh the irony). So it's pretty safe to say that the United States will be back to square-one with Iraqi oil. We once bought it from Saddam for next to nothing so it's still in our best interest do buy for next to nothing. This was always the case! It’s just that people put earplugs in their ears instead of understanding simple economics, oil restrictions and how we once got oil from Iraq for peanuts! It would be stupid for Bush to set-up shop like most claimed before. Why concern yourself with production and red tape when all you have to worry about is getting the oil back to domestic refineries at a premium rate? Let them worry about that crap…

Now back to Democracy... if we actually establish a worthwhile system then it pressures neighboring countries to do the same. It'll prove that the Americans aren't really that bad after all. It’ll prove the infidels meant well and will disprove the radical Muslim clergy. I just pray to Allah that it'll be a more liberal society and not the conservative society everyone expected or quietly hopes for. If that's the case then it may even pressure Iran's more liberal youth to revamp society. Iran is one of those countries whose people (a lot of them) yearn for Western civilization. Unfortunately, it took a report from liberal Sean Pean for SFgate and similar papers to realize this (even though it’s old news). I like to think Western-instilled democracy is a catalyst for change in the Middle East. And if it does succeed in this respect then it will help with terrorism.

I don't know what people want me to say? This is what I truly think. I don't think there's any help in arguing these points because it's gotten to the point we should all sit-back and cross our fingers for the best.

dub2w

I think that you make some good points. Oil was most certainly not the only factor. However, we shouldnt just sit back. We need to hold the people that we voted into office accountable (both Dem and Rep) and demand answers.

For the amount of our pay checks that we give to the govt in taxes, and with a majority of that money going to defense / military, we are owed the truth and transparency.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Yeah... I think it's safe to say oil is not a factor the way many libs and dems thought or had hoped in order to instill their anti-Bush rage. All we want is a steady flow like we used to have. There is no party for Bush in Iraq wanting Federalism alongside the Shiites and Kurds. Face it, we have little to no control in that regard. According to complaining Sunnis, it's just the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south as far as the constitution stands in its current draft. They fear federalism is going to give the Shiites and Kurds absolute control of the oil wealth. It'll be business as usual in regards to the US buying oil at next to nothing like we used to from Saddam.

I see your point regarding the truth and agree. Would be nice if Bush got on national TV with a polygraph test being conducted. But it's never going to happen. I honestly think it wouldn't matter though. People will only accept what they want to hear. If Bush came forward and reiterated exactly what I've mentioned a handful of times in this forum like I have in post#21, then people would call bull****.

Likewise, if Bush came forward and said, "Bush Sr. called me up and asked me to finish what he started. Not to mention I’m hungry for oil even though I can afford to put 10 Rolls Royces in my garage every midnight till my term ends. " The Dems and Liberals would be chanting "See! I told you Neo-Cons! HA!" while every Republican and Conservative would say, “Don't flatter yourselves... it was an excuse to shut you guys up and move forward.” It's much better to take all the information since the Clinton years till now and come-up with your own conclusion.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

its also safe to say no matter what we do and what outcome is to come around there will allways be a portion of the arab world that will demonize us. For the love of god its the oldest trick in the ****ing book, create and demonize an enemy, make him a super villian, blame him for all ills.. All so that the stupid public wont catch on to your own ill deeds. It gives them something to hate, and as we all know hate is the great unifier of people.

And a unified people is easy to control.

Its all about control guys, on our side and theirs. Mutal hatred plays into the hands of both sets of leaders.

dub2w

That is the truth!