Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Samuel Friday, December 29, 2006 - 19:27 (Agree/Disagree?) WOO HOO! Saddam Hussein is DEAD! (reply to this comment)

From GetReal Friday, December 29, 2006, 19:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck yeah, what goes around comes around. from what I'm hearing there are Iraqis dancing after he was hanged . In your face America haters !!!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, December 29, 2006, 20:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I should have known not to get you started. GetReal, I agree with your opinion, but you're a little too arrogant. Just because someone doesn't support the war doesn't mean they're "America haters". At this moment, I'm not sure how I feel about the war, actually. I do think we still have a chance to win, especially with new leadership in the Bush administration. But yeah, from what I'm seeing there are Iraqis dancing in the streets. And I'm very happy for them. CNN is saying there was dancing around Saddam Hussein's body, by the way. Not exactly what I would do, but if it works for them that's cool. I will deifnitely be bringing cookies to work tomorrow to celebrate. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 30, 2006, 00:09 (Agree/Disagree?) For every one man who would dance for Saddam's funeral, there are ten who would dance for Bush's. There is never truth or justice in wartime trials, only winners and losers. Stronger, and weaker. The winner is always right, and the loser is always evil. I have no love for Mr. Hussein. I willl shed no tears, nor would I place flowers on his grave. But I will not rejoice for his death either. Bin Laden yes, Hussein, no. I do not hate the USA but I do oppose the war, and the manner in which it has progressed. I believe the USA had no business going in, and I feel it was a massive strategic error on military, political, and diplomatic levels. I think this whole shebang has gone horribly wrong, and the USA is hanging herself with her own rope. Any respect they earned as champions of freedom, honor, and liberty has now been lost. They put an end to Nazi atrocity, points up. They put an end to Japanese imperialism, points up. They dropped the A-bomb, points down. They successfully managed post war Japan, points up. Surviving the cold war, up. Vietnam, down. Going after the Taliban and Al-Qaida, up. Used a false pretense going into Iraq, and created nothing but chaos and a new unjust and unstable country, best describable as an anarchic humanitarian disaster. Points down. I hope some day the US will come to her senses, and once again be seen as America the beautiful, land of the free. Currently, I feel only dissapointment and embarrassment for our ally.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 30, 2006, 05:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I think rushing to war in Iraq was a military/strategy error. I don't see anything wrong with it as far as diplomatic and political goes. We tried diplomacy for 12 years. It didn't work. Not even with Clinton, who had a way of making deals (but rarely doing anything to enforce them). Of course Iraq is unjust and unstable right now. There is no real government. But they're working on that. I'm just hoping they can stabilize Iraq and set up a well trained police force and army, so the soldiers can come home. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 30, 2006, 06:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, did you think the war in Iraq was just between the USA and Saddam Hussein? It was a diplomatic disaster, because it made the world, including staunch and traditional allies lose faith in America. It caused unrest all over the world, by pitting the leaders of Americas allies against their own people. How did it end? In some cases, the voters of allied countries voted out America loving leaders, and brought in not so favorable ones to pull themselves out of Iraq. There's a lot more to this than just you, Dubya and Saddam. In Japan, nationalism is on the rise, and many people want a stronger defense mechanism. The defense department is a full fledged defense ministry now. Why? Because we fear we'd be targeted for terrorist activity, or dragged into a war because of our alliance with the US. Some are unsure if we can continue putting up with the USA much longer. Of course the rise of nationalism has a lot to do with the economic growth of China and Korea too, but a lot of people think we are losing our position because the US assraped our economy. Some think having a stronger defense would put us in a better position as far as Japan-USA diplomacy goes. The USA concentrating their resources in Iraq and Afghanistan means less protection against the DPRK, which is another major security concern for Japan. We're pissed off that a hostile neighbour is test firing missles at us, kidnapping our citizens, and building nukes, and America won't seriously tackle the issue while they busily target a country that really wasn't a threat to Japan. Our taxes are going into the war, and we've acted outside our constitution by providing naval support, as well as by deploying troops in Iraq. Not that I agree with all these paranoias and conspiracy theories, but I'm not the only voter. It was a domestic political error, as can clearly be seen by the fact that the Democrats just won the last elections. It was a domestic disaster in that it was a clever cover for stealing your freedoms and rights, while letting you feel good about waving miniflags and celebrating the execution of a foreign sovereign nation's president. It was an international political error, in that in undermined the UN security council, and set a precedent for hostile invasion against international opinion. It was an international political error, in that it gave a precedent, an excuse, for nations openly against the US to beef up their military, and stand firmly against the USA with a do or die attitude. Knowing the US military is stretched thin allows Americas enemies to act more arrogantly than they would otherwise. Iran knows the USA can't invade now, as does DPRK. The USA is pouring in tremendous resources and sweating their asses off, while all Americas enemies are laughing and enjoying the little break. You don't see any losses as far as diplomacy and politics goes? The USA lost more than they could ever gain from the war, the minute they told the world to stand "with us, or against us". To those of you serving in Iraq or elsewhere, I respect your profession and the risks you are taking. I wish each one of you makes it home safely. My dissapointment is purely with the politics and strategy of the USA. I don't in any way dislike anyone for being American, being a soldier, or even for supporting the war. I just disagree with the war, and I find ignorant blithering annoying. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 30, 2006, 06:40 (Agree/Disagree?) "with us, or against us" is a good idea if you're figthing a war on terrorism. I don't think it means every nation that is "for us" has to fight, over even support the war. I think the main problem was when Bush started to put the two together, fighting Iraq as part of the War on Terror. I think he made a mistake there. Just because a person or nation is against the war in Iraq, that doesn't mean they're against the War on Terror, and I think Bush made a mistake in failing to recognize that. I think that is what caused America to lose allies. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 30, 2006, 07:00 (Agree/Disagree?) The "war" on terror can't be fought with guns alone. To end terror, one must reduce enemies, not multiply them. Instead of thinking of how to defend yourself from your enemies, or how to destroy your enemies, shouldn't you be thinking of how not to make enemies? Or how to make friends? Friendship won at gunpoint can never be trusted.(reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, December 30, 2006, 07:04 (Agree/Disagree?) ^^^ ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! (reply to this comment)

From GetReal Friday, December 29, 2006, 20:42 (Agree/Disagree?) huh i'm not too arrogant , not in a millon years. just had about ten drinks of vodka with my room mate to celebrate the end of a very bad man. as far as Saddam lovers and America haters, burn pretty please you lose today. As far as America having a chance to win I think we already lost . We lost the moral high ground we got after 9-11 . we lost a ton and a half of good will that 400,000 Americans paid for with thier blood im WW 2. Bush is a loser he fucked up the war the econmy and just about every thing else and I'm glad I voted against him . take care Sammule(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 30, 2006, 04:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Then you should go with Smashingrl's idea- hide your lap top when you're drunk. : o )(reply to this comment)

from Korpesco Friday, February 24, 2006 - 16:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Saddam Hussein tried to oppress Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds, and his own people. The civil rights and moral development of Iraq, from its criminal justice system to their treatment of minorities was medieval. In todays modernising society we cannot afford to have tyrants and religious extremists in positions of power; with 14th century morals and access to modern weapons. If the 20th century wars taught us anything it is that passive means you lose. Passive didnt save the victims from Mao and Stalin and Hitler. Demonstrations are nice and often work for nations who generally have advanced moral development but do you think a Jewish demonstration would have had an effect on Hitler...do you think a Kurdish demonstration would have had an effect on Saddam? Passivists lack the moral will to action. A small band is all it would need to wipe out a city of peaceful passivists. The Iraqi war is justified through the liberation of the iraqi, Kuwaiti and Kurdish peoples. It is justified in helping to confront the stagnating middle east with cultural reform. Its sticking a visible banner of western values in a hornets nest of dark age theocracy, religious terrorism and civil suppression. It is justified in that Saddam broke cease fire agreements and was the cause of 15 security council resolutions. Though I feel a war of liberation is necessary in the middle east I also feel that the way it was done was terribly faulty. I also think that the people there are so indoctrinated with religon that if given liberty to decide, they would tear up their civil liberties by the roots. Democracy will be a gang plank to theocracy. The war should be to establish civil liberties and equality rather than "democracy". (reply to this comment)

from Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_manuel_v_060215_land_of_the_puppet_p.htm (reply to this comment)

from americans against bombing site Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htm (reply to this comment)

from Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 13:41 (Agree/Disagree?) For hundreds more go to; http://antiwar.com/quotes.php The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. ~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. ~Martin Luther King, Jr. War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. ~General Smedley Butler Imperialism is an institution under which one nation asserts the right to seize the land or at least to control the government or resources of another people. ~John T. Flynn The great error of nearly all studies of war... has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics... ~Simone Weil We may extend our dominion over the whole continent...but be assured it will be at the price of our free institutions. ~Rep. William Waters Boyce I hate war for its consequences, for the lies it lives on and propagates, for the undying hatreds it arouses... ~Harry Emerson Fosdick Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly. ~Senator Robert M. La Follette After every ''victory'' you have more enemies. ~Jeanette Winterson Wars are inevitable...as long as we believe that wars are inevitable. The moment we don't believe it anymore it is not inevitable. ~Lydia Sicher The winds that blow our billions away return burdened with themes of scorn and dispraise. ~Garet Garrett I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats... ~Benjamin Franklin [T]he essence of so-called war prosperity; it enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income. ~Ludwig von Mises Our children are not born to hate, they are raised to hate. ~Thomas della Peruta Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. ~Donald Rumsfeld Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. ~Marie Beyle I guess every generation is doomed to fight its war...suffer the loss of the same old illusions, and learn the same old lessons on its own. ~Phillip Caputo Although tyranny...may successfully rule over foreign peoples, it can stay in power only if it destroys first of all the national institutions of its own people. ~Hannah Areddt I hate those men who would send into war youth to fight and die for them; the pride and cowardice of those old men, making their wars that boys must die. ~Mary Roberts Rinehart Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. ~Major Ralph Peters, US Military For me war has become a flat, black depression without highlights, a revulsion of the mind and an exhaustion of the spirit. ~Ernie Pyle Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all. ~Tacitus War creates peace like hate creates love. ~David L. Wilson War's a game, which, were their subjects wise, Kings would not play at. ~William Cowper Military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy... ~Abraham Lincoln Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. ~Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. ~George McGovern War is fear cloaked in courage. ~General William Westmoreland Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor. ~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God" Never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. ~Sir Winston Churchill What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero We are the ones responsible to determine whether the war that our marines, soldiers and airmen are fighting in is worth the cause... ~Scott Ritter I am not blaming those who are resolved to rule, only those who show an even greater readiness to submit. ~Thucydides The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous. ~Frederick Douglass Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. ~Noam Chomsky It is far easier to make war than peace. ~Georges Clemenceau The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions. ~Robert Lynd Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. ~Ulysses S. Grant It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force than the minds of a single village. ~Voltaire Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. ~James Madison War doesn't make boys men, it makes men dead. ~Ken Gillespie An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot. ~Thomas Paine Modern war appears as a struggle led by all the State apparatuses and their general staffs against all men old enough to bear arms... ~Simone Weil Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. ~Senator Robert M. La Follette It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners. ~Albert Camus We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. ~Edward R. Murrow Wars teach us not to love our enemies, but to hate our allies. ~W. L. George The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. ~Marcus Aurelius The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero Man was/is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One who believes himself the master of others is nonetheless a greater slave than they. ~Jean Jaques Rousseau The dangerous patriot...drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions. ~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps I've been immersed in it too long. My spirit is wobbly and my mind is confused. The hurt has become too great. ~Ernie Pyle It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else. ~Theodore Roosevelt Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear. ~General Douglas MacArthur For what can war, but endless war, still breed? ~John Milton The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ~Sir Winston Churchill Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people... ~Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent. ~Issac Asimov Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood. ~Mahatma Gandhi Let not your zeal to share your principles entice you beyond your borders. ~Marquis de Sade Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. ~Alexander Solzhenitsyn The demands of internal growth are incomparably more important to us...than the need for any external expansion of our power. ~Alexander Solzhenitsyn A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. ~Alexander Solzhenitsyn It is always more valuable to report the truth. ~Jean-Paul Sartre Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell (reply to this comment)

From Fish Thursday, February 23, 2006, 10:03 (Agree/Disagree?) "Violence is the LAST refuge of the incompetent." Duh... Never read the foundation seires I take it?(reply to this comment)

from Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 13:33 (Agree/Disagree?) http://artvoice.com/issues/v4n45/who_killed_pat_tillman “Today as never before in their history,” the book relentlessly argues, “Americans are enthralled with military power.” They naïvely exaggerate its effectiveness, overlook its horror, romanticize the military profession, and accept the normalization of war as an instrument of policy. There is no single culprit in this shift, certainly not just the Bush administration and its neocons, although they get their fair share of blame. The march to militarism has been a bipartisan project into which various elites, popular culture, and religious movements have shepherded society and government institutions with scarcely a thought. To a degree unprecedented but now taken for granted, the purpose of the armed forces has shifted from defending American territory to projecting power abroad. Clear superiority over potential enemies is assumed to be insufficient; only worldwide supremacy is deemed adequate. (Bacevich might have added that only in America would we see a difference between national security—the business of the Defense Department, carried on far from our shores—and homeland security, requiring another new department to protect the country itself.) In popular consciousness, the 20th-century image of war as “barbarism, brutality, ugliness,” which “after 1914, only fascists dared to challenge,” the image of the modern battlefield as a slaughterhouse, has been replaced by a 21st-century high-tech image of war as clean—“surgical, frictionless, postmodern”—in which the heroes of the hit film “Top Gun” “never missed a meal and got sweaty only when they felt like it.” Among the laments that one suspects hits close to home for Bacevich is the fact that since “the demise of the ancient American tradition of the citizen-soldier,” war is no longer “participatory.” With military service having come to be a matter of personal choice rather than obligation, an attitude exemplified in the personal histories of Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton, Americans experience war only “vicariously.” The analysis behind all this proves solidly, sadly convincing. I find little with which to quarrel and only a bit over which to quibble—and the quibbles supplement the book’s argument more than challenge it. One big question that Bacevich answers very well but incompletely is where this militarist shift came from. His chapters chronicle the confluence of social, political, and intellectual developments driving toward the embrace of force, tracing the evolution of domestic politics and popular culture, national-security strategy from the Cold War to Sept. 11, oil addiction and entanglement in the Persian Gulf, the crisis-mongering and Churchill mania of the neocons, the migration of evangelicals from anti-political pacifism to worldly crusades, the failure of the military officer corps to secure the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, the technological panaceas purveyed by defense intellectuals, and more. Bacevich sees all this as a recent, dramatic change, a perversion of tradition driven indirectly by reaction to Vietnam and the turmoil of the 1960s. He does note that the new mentality has deeper roots, particularly in Wilsonianism. One might trace the origins back even farther, however, at least to the jingoism of 1898 and our first imperial adventure in the Philippines, if not to the vogue of Manifest Destiny. Today’s myths that Bacevich finds so appalling have culminated and converged in the 21st century, but in many ways they are old myths. They come to the surface periodically and recede in the face of rude awakenings about the limits of what force can do to remake the world in our image. http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_23/article1.html (reply to this comment)

from sarafina Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 09:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Pay no attention to them Sam, There are plenty of us on here who support our troops the war and Bush. We just don’t waste our time arguing with all the whiners on here. Four in my family are already in the military including my husband and a fifth is about to join. My younger sister and good friend are in Iraq as we speak. My Grandpa who just passed away was in the airforce and his dad before him, he was a pilot. It seems a three of his sons all ran off and joined a cult to avoid the war. At least my brothers and sisters are bringing back the family Honor and tradition of serving their country. Everyone wants to enjoy freedom but few are willing to pay the price. (reply to this comment)

From smashingrrl Saturday, July 22, 2006, 23:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you served? I have. I've been there. I've had friends come home in body bags. Not one of them supported this administration. Please don't equate Patriotism with being a lemming. Please don't equate "supporting the troops" with supporting the administration who sent us over there to fight and die for their lies. Keep putting "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on your car. It's LITERALLY the least you can do. Everyone has a right to agree to disagree with this war and this president. I've fought for that right. Just don't denigrate my service by pretending dissagreement with this administration is "whining" or anything other than supporting the military. I remember asking my commander one day the first time I was in Saudi, before the war. I asked him why we didn't just take care of it the first time. Why didn't we just roll in and take over the country. General Zinni, you may have heard of him, told me that we didn't because Sadam, while evil, was the only thing holding that nation together. If Irag went down, Iran would become too powerful. At least Hussein wasn't a religious fanatic and we were much more scared of Iran than Iraq. If only someone had listened to him then. He was the commander of CENTCOM.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, July 23, 2006, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I actually agree with you on this. If only someone had listened to him back in 1990. Things would have been so much easier back then. I probably still would have protested at the military base here, being a The Family anti- war nut back then. Times change. Have you read my comments on other sites? I've addressed the question of why I have not served before. The army does not want people with asthma. I think it's wonderful that you serve your country, and I would never attempt to denigrate your service. To do so would, in my opinion, be unpatriotic. Samuel Mercuri (reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 10:00 (Agree/Disagree?) As a veteran I find it highly offensive when people equate support for the troops with a love of Bush and his treachery. The members of our armed forces are currently suffering the misfortune of having been lied to and betrayed by their commander in chief in order to further his misguided foreign policy and personal vendettas. This betrayal is criminal and unforgivable. If the people now dying were once your brothers and sisters in arms then your opinion might matter. Otherwise shut the fuck up with this "I support the troops and our dear leader, one nation under ribbons" crap. It is an insult to those who have died as a result of the dereliction of duty committed by their unfortunate, temporary leader. The US Armed Forces and their honor will persevere long after this sad episode is a distant, but painful memory. Stop trying to coopt timeless concepts like honor and patriotism to whitewash this tragic episode in the military's history. A true patriot loves his country first and foremost, and has the courage to speak truth to the power figures that threaten his country. Just because you lack the abstract thinking skills needed to seperate the concept of your nation and flag from the temporary power figures that happen to run it right now doesn't mean those of us who do need to listen to tacky, feeble rhetoric.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, February 23, 2006, 08:41 (Agree/Disagree?) As someone who supported military intervention in Iraq, I find it offensive when people equate support of the war with a love of Bush and a lack of abstract thinking skills. There were, and continue to be, numerous reasons to support military intervention in the region which have nothing to do with Bush, Blair or any other Western leaders. It is also possible to agree with strategic arguments for the war while criticising the execution and lack of planning. Anyone who doesn't understand those distinctions is in fact evidencing their own 'lack of thinking skills', and as such ought not to be throwing stones from within their glass house.(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, February 23, 2006, 16:32 (Agree/Disagree?) What good arguments are there in favour of the invasion of Iraq? I think that a lack of strategy and planning would be a valid consideration in deciding whether the invasion was positive. i.e. it would be wrong to invade without planning. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, February 24, 2006, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) The over-arching reason being that this was not a 'new' war, but rather the ending of an old one which had persisted since 1991. Although ground force engagement had ended, the war had continued in the form of UN Sanctions and Allied (US) bombings which followed the Iraqi government's refusal to abide by the terms of their defeat. WMD or no WMD, the terms dictated that they allow inspectors access to verify - instead, Saddam played games with the International community for close to a decade-&-a-half, while his people suffered under the cripling sanctions. Regime change was another reason, in addition to the massive human rights abuses being carried out by Saddam's government, it was also in breach of UN Resolutions (and don't bother pulling up the 'but other countries are in breach of UN Resolutions' argument - it's irrelevant to the actions of the Iraqi government). The key drivers for the revived military engagement were therefore determined by the International community through the UN, and it was simply the enforcement which certain governments shied from for either domestic constraints or vested interests in maintaining the status quo (oil supply contracts between Saddam's government and the French and Russians). Yes, better planning was needed - but that could have definitely been improved had the participating governments not spent most of their efforts trying (unsuccessfully) to rally support. As for the current mess, bringing democracy to a country is always a messy business, the American Revolutionary War, English Civil War and French Revolution are notable examples of the violent transition that typifies this process. This is the context in which we must view the current violence in Iraq, it is an internal power-grab caused by the years of repressive totalitarian dictatorship - external involvement was not the cause, but rather the facilitator for it. Bottom line is, it's happened all over the world already, main difference is that we now have the media looking for the biggest headlines to grab and most graphic violence to display, which in turn only serves to exacerbate the problems.(reply to this comment)

From exister Thursday, February 23, 2006, 10:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery. Two reasons why I cut Ne Oublie lots of slack. One, his rhetorical skill is almost on a par with mine, and two, because he is not afraid to admit to being the war mongering, capitalist pig that he is. Cheers, my friend!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, February 24, 2006, 13:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Cheers, and consider yourelf flattered!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 19:26 (Agree/Disagree?) You should read a book I read by Richard Miniter called "Disinformation: 22 media myths that undermine the War On Terror" Very well researched, and in my area very hard to find at the local library. I had to be placed on a waiting list and have it sent from another library. Once I finally got around to reading it, the book was amazing! Well researched, well written, and fair. I didn't see a liberal or conservative viewpoint. I like tot hink that the man is a Conservative, and I was amazed at how hw went out of his way to be fair to both sides. Of course it also exposes Conservative myths, because anything else would be unfair. And just so you know, Saddam Hussein was considered a power figure, and he repeatedly threatened our country. And he too was quite good when it came to using tacky, feeble rhetoric. Now, I'm asthmatic. The army doesn't want me. But just two weeks ago I recieved a shipment of rubber bracelets I ordered. They say "Pray For Our Troops" and are color filled with blue ink (a process I was unaware of before). For art files, they have a set of praying hands on one side, and the American and British flags flying side by side on the other side. The money I make from selling these bracelets will go to provide care for those who have been wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to a care package (possibly two) for the soldiers in Iraq. It's not much, but it's the least I can do. It gives people a chance to show their support for the soldiers, and reminds them to pray for our troops. Personally, I pray that God will give them strength, protect them, and expedite their return home. As far as whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong, I'm still undecided on that issue. I want a chance to process everything through 20/20 vision before I make a judgement. TTFN. Samuel Mercuri (reply to this comment)

From exister Thursday, February 23, 2006, 08:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting, you read a piece of media (a book) that told you about myths in the media, and then you believed what this piece of media was telling you. Isn't that kind of like me telling you that I have a tendency to smack people that listen to me and then you standing there and waiting for me to smack you upside the head? You're like the eternal, recursive media boob. "Hey, I know what I can do to counteract these lies in the media, promote more media that exposes the lies in the media." Your gullibility is like some fucked up Escher painting. Thanks for the laughs!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, February 23, 2006, 20:35 (Agree/Disagree?) While a book is technically media, is is certainly a different form than television or radio. People who write for newspapers or television reports are called journalists. People who write books are called authors. But I'm quite sure you already knew that. Of course I don't know for sure, but it appears to me that you probably have not read the suggested book. However, you attack the book and call me "gullible" for believing this form of media over another form- Good Morning America, for instance, or Dan Rather. What gives? Please let me know when you are ready to make an informed statement about the book. "I'm running out of things to finish my comments with" - Samuel Mercuri himself Samuel Mercuri(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, February 24, 2006, 07:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You silly little rube. I need neither to read your cherished piece of prowar propaganda nor to make an informed statement about its content because I am operating from the superior position of rejecting all media, including these pathetic little blurbs that you post. If you look carefully you will notice that my last comment was not a commentary on whatever book you are currently jerking off to, but rather on the absurdity of any position that derides the media based on something they read in the media. Your implication that a writer who pens a book is to be trusted more readily than one who writes an article is proof enough to confirm my suspicion that you are a very simple minded little sheep indeed. Baaaaaaaaaah. Move along now and join the rest of the flock. Feel free to post here again when you have an original thought to contribute instead of an effusive open heart report about how some ass hole's blather about his media paranoia changed your life. You may notice that many of us on this site had quite enough of misguided people walking around with a hard on for some shit they just read when we were kids, and we are not likely to take kindly to any more of this tiresome, cult of personality bullshit. If you are so excited about Richard Miniter you should probably contact him. He might have an opening for someone to park himself under his desk and fellate him. That sounds like a "position" you would like very much.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, February 24, 2006, 19:25 (Agree/Disagree?) What was that all about? You distrust all media, I understand that. How you get the idea that your position is superior I don't know. We're all the same people, so how could anyone's position be superior to someone else's, you silly little rube? I resent the suggestion that I jerk off to the above mentioned book. I returned it to the library last month, and if it was dirty or otherwise unreadable they would let me know. Your cult like insults about being a dumb sheep no longer work on me, Hallelujah! Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom! How many people do these sheep insults of yours actually work on? Perhaps you've missed your calling, and you should go to Utah and start your own cult. Shepherds in most homes would never have allowed me to do an OHR on Disinformation. They'd probably chastise me for getting into the wisdom of man, or reading a book that was so pro-war! I am not saying that this book changed my life, I am saying that it really helped me to back up my Conservative beliefs about supporting the troops. Bush did not lie about WMD's, and WMD's have indeed been found in Iraq. And the television media isn't telling you that, which should suit you just right because you said above that you distrust all media. What does The Family have anything to do with Richard Miniter, besides the fact that they probably can't stand him? You don't have to preach to me about misguided people walking around with a hard on for shit they just read. I lived that life for 23 years! I hear it when I discuss people that are still in The Family, and it sucks. It sucks real bad! I wish Karen and Steve would take a slow walk down Interstate-4 while blindfolded. At rush hour. With Grant Montgomery. I'm quite sure Richard Miniter has a wife to take care of all his fellatio needs- if that's what he likes. To each his own. (reply to this comment)

From sarafina Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 10:17 (Agree/Disagree?) And that is your opinion, which you are entitled to as I am to mine. I do not need to be told to “shut the fuck up” I can say what I like on here. If you don’t like it don’t read it, no one is forcing you to read or hear anything. Be offended all you want that’s your right too. I’ve been offended many times by many of the comments on here but I’ve never asked you or anyone else on here to shut up. I don’t have time to get into a lengthy response right now as it’s a busy day at work, maybe some other time. (reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 10:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Do I get a demerit now for not watching my manners?(reply to this comment)

From sarafina Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) No Demerit. But a few lashes with my cat nine might do you good. (reply to this comment)

from Samuel Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 19:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Looks like someone been reading the MO Letters! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/international/middleeast/15iran.html?ex=1135314000&en=a4f41ebe33695767&ei=5058&partner=IWON (reply to this comment)

from neez Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 22:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Well I'll be fucked. I'm guessing they've won the war on drugs too then. (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Thursday, February 23, 2006, 05:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm so happy to hear you're getting fucked Neez. God knows I'd do the job myself but alas time fails me...... (reply to this comment)

from Random Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 19:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I love Saddam Husainn!!!! Make LOVE not WAR, ups... i did it again (reply to this comment)

from Team America! Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 15:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Ive got a theme song for this post.................................................. Americuuh Fuck yeah!!! So lick my butt & suck on mah balls!!! Americuuh Fuck yeah!!! (reply to this comment)

From placebo Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 16:45 (Agree/Disagree?) heh I do believe that half of us have switched Berg and Zerby for Stone and Parker. Pretty damn good trade has far as I'm concerned.(reply to this comment)

From I hear you Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 20:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll take Mr Hanky and Towlie over "Abrahim" and "Europa" anyday.(reply to this comment)

from Fish Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 08:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Cool! Can I watch it? Please show me more patriotic hogwash! Give me more, give me more, of the bush your living for.... (reply to this comment)

From GG Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 03:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Stuff it haters. If you think being patriotic is hogwash, you don't need to be American.(reply to this comment)

from Support the Troops: Torture is not US Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 05:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Quick ad for: www.optruth.org & http://www.tortureisnotus.org/ (reply to this comment)

From Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 08:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Marines bodies coming back as freight: unacceptable. http://www.optruth.org/(reply to this comment)

from porceleindoll Monday, December 12, 2005 - 15:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Try some alternative news sources such as democracy.org for the other side of the situation. Even IF the US is winning the war, at what cost? Some things are better than 'winning'. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 12, 2005, 18:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Such as? I don't know what you mean by "cost". If you're talking about the lives of our soldiers overseas, this is what they signed up for (that and a college scholarship). It sucks that the rest of the media rarely pays attention to the good news that is coming out of Iraq. I can tell you one thing, I heard a lot of "Thank You's" last night. Perhaps you mean money,though. How much is one person's life worth? Is it worth 70 billion dollars? That's the last estimate I heard of how much will be spent in Iraq this fiscal year. How much is freedom worth? How much is it worth to know for that if the United States is ever attacked with nuclear weapons, it will not come from Saddam Hussein, or anyone in Iraq for that matter. If you ever feel like hearing the other side, the side that is rarely covered on CNN and ABC World News, I suggest a book called "Disinformation"- it's all about the myths spread in the media about Iraq and about National Security. I only got to read a few pages at Sam's Club since I couldn't afford to buy the book, but I was surprised to find that it is very enlighening and fair. Bush is criticized as well, by the way, because anything else would be unfair. Bush sent us to war, and we are still there 2 years later. It would be innapropriate to crticize the war effort while the war is taking place- because it destroys the morale of the soldiers who are risking their lives every day. When you go to bed at night, remember that for the soldiers in Iraq, their day is just beginning. I pray that God will give them the strength to plow on, that he will give them the wisdom to know what to do in difficult situations, that he will protect them, and that he will expedite their return home. I am not going to decide now whether the war in Iraq was right or not. There will be plenty of time for that when the troops are home safe. I am reminded of the verse in the Bible, "Summing it all up, friends, I'd say you'll do your best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious- the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse. Put into practice what you learned from me, what you heard and saw and realized." Philippians 4:8,9 (from The Message Bible)(reply to this comment)

From sar Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 10:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I find it utterly revolting that you pay absolute disregard for the lives of people being killed in this war that are not US soldiers. Thousands of Iraqi citizens have been killed. Your patriotism is sheer bigotry. Why should you consider an American soldier's life to be of greater value than an Iraqi soldier's or even citizen's? Why do you want God to "give them strength to plow on" when your not even decided on whether what they are doing is right or wrong? Unless of course you wrote what you wrote in irony, in which case uh duh. Though I have heard there are people like you in the states. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 19:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I said plow on, not plow on SOMEONE! Those are two different things. By plow on, I'm talking about the mission that they were sent for. The orders recieved every day. The soldiers are doing a great job. They're building schools, facilities. Even taking orphans in at the military bases. Millions of Iraqi citizens have been killed by the our milit...OH! Sorry, that was Saddam Hussein who killed millions of Iraqi citizens. A million all in one week if I remember right. Think of what Saddam Hussein would be doing now if the US military hadn't forced him into hiding! When you are thousands of miles away from your home military base, much less your real home, it's easy to get depressed and upset by your conditions. It's even harder when you know of all the people you might help today, there are still those who would throw a grenade right in your face if they had a chance. Most of those, by the way, are not "insurgents" as the media keeps calling them, but foreigners from neighbouring countries. Sometimes the mail is slow to arrive, sometimes a friend they trained with dies, sometimes the only news to come may be that their tour of duty is being extended. Some of these soldiers have newborn babies that they have never held or seen before. It can all add up and take a major toll on a soldier. That is why I pray for God to give them the strength to plow on in their everyday missions. I didn't say I was undecided on whether what they are doing is right or wrong. Building a hospital is right, all the time! Restoring power and clean water is right, all the time! Building schools, taking orphans in at military bases, is always the right thing to do. But one day when the troops are home safe and I can see the full results of the US military campaign and the progress the Iraqis have made without American help, then I will decide whether the money spent on Iraq was wasted, or put to good use. If going into Iraq was the right thing to do, or the wrong thing to do. By the way "Disinformation" has a whole chapter about the number of Iraqi casualties. If you're that interested in Iraqi civilian casualties, you might want to check it out at your library- because nobody likes to be disinformed. And yes, Praise God, there are plenty of people like me in the States! Hallelujah! Bumper sticker says: "Visualize Whirled Peas" I also like "Stop Global Whining" Okay, that's enough for one night. TTFN! Samuel Mercuri(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, February 23, 2006, 16:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Geez, and there I was thinking americans were dumb or something. "Disinformation" sounds like a cool place to get disinformed (is that a word?). Good luck with that dood. (reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 10:50 (Agree/Disagree?) http://iraqbodycount.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=00033a5a8dfa3ad4e292fab3be86f84f&submit3=Enter+Site(reply to this comment)

From anecdotas Tuesday, February 21, 2006, 10:39 (Agree/Disagree?) A soldier was walking down an empty street in Iraq. A gust of wind blew up a cloud of dust, and suddenly the soldier could see nothing. He grew nervous, wondering whether the cloud of dust wasn't the work of terrorists. He gripped his gun and pointed it around, his fingers shaking on the trigger. When the dust cleared, he saw a man sitting on the side of the road, thinking. "What are you doing?" the soldier asked. "You scared the shit out of me! What the hell are you doing?" As it happened, the man spoke English. He said, "I'm thinking about what the American soldiers are doing in Iraq." "Go on, get out of here. It's our job to think about what we're doing here." The man asked, "Are you doing it?" And the soldier started thinking. * * * A soldier was sent out to look for insurgents. He had an Iraqi interpreter with him. Before entering a suspicious-looking house, the soldier noticed some words painted on the outer wall. "What does that say?" asked the soldier. The interpreter answered, "It says, 'American solders, go home!'" "Hell," said the soldier, "you bet I want to go home! Do they think we want to be in this place?" "Then why are you here?" asked the interpreter. The soldier thought for a moment. Then he said, "I guess there must be somebody else who wants us here." The soldier kept looking at the piece of graffiti. Then he asked, "Why didn't they write it in English, so my commanding officer could read it?" The interpreter said, "I don't know. Maybe there are some people in Iraq who don't want to speak English." * * * A soldier broke open the door of a run-down house. Inside, two men and a woman sat around a table. "That's the one," said the soldier to his interpreter, pointing at one of the men. "We got a tip about him. Ask him his name." The interpreter asked the man for his name. The man did not answer. "Ask him where he's from," said the soldier. The interpreter asked. The man answered, and the interpreter translated: "He says he's from Palestine." "That's the one," said the soldier. "Ask him what he's doing here. Ask him if he came to join the insurgency." The interpreter asked and translated the reply: "He says he is a refugee. He came because he was sent away from his home." The soldier stopped to think. "That's the same as me," he said. And he left the house. * * * A group of soldiers was watching television at a military base. The President was on TV, speaking of patriotism. One of the men who were watching clenched his fists and said, "We'll get those terrorists. We'll show 'em." Another soldier said, "You think you're real patriotic, don't you. You looked patriotic when you pissed your pants last time they shot at you." "Shut up," said another soldier. "You think you're so tough. You think our country cares about someone pissing his pants? We're all out here showing the world we care about democracy, and that's what the country cares about." Then another soldier spoke. "Well," he said, "I'm more patriotic than all of you. Because I'd rather be home right now in my beautiful country than here killing Iraqis." The other soldiers looked at him, and one of them turned off the TV. * * * "Shoot anyone who looks suspicious!" shouted the drill sergeant during a training drill. One soldier decided to shout back, "You don't really mean that, do you sergeant?" "Yes I do, Private Peterson!" said the sergeant. "And if you say another word you'll have to clean the sand out of all our uniforms tonight!" But the soldier was stubborn and insubordinate. He went on: "You can't really mean that, sergeant! Because if I followed your orders, you'd be the first one I'd shoot!" He saluted the sergeant and stood at attention. The sergeant walked to the soldier and grabbed him by the collar. He asked, "Did I just hear you say what I think I did?" The soldier said, "I have a right to speak, don't I, sergeant?" The sergeant said, "You have no rights here! This is not a democracy, Private Peterson! This is the army!" "With all due respect, sergeant," said the soldier, "then how are we supposed to bring democracy to Iraq?" The soldier cleaned his comrades' uniforms for several days to come, until an urgent assignment sent him on a dangerous mission to another part of the country. * * * A soldier was assigned to protect a special unit that was searching for hidden chemical weapons. It was made up of soldiers from another country. When they were taking a break, the soldier from the U.S. asked one of the others, "So what are you guys doing here?" "We're looking for chemical weapons," said the other soldier. "No," said the first, "I mean, what are you doing here? You know." The other soldier seemed to understand. He said, "We're helping you bring democracy to the world." "Bring democracy to the world?" said the first soldier. "Is that what we're doing? Then they've been fooling us again. I thought we were trying to take their oil." "If that were what you were doing, then why would we be helping you?" "That's what I was trying to ask." At that moment they heard gunshots, and they ran to take cover. It was an ambush. * * * Two soldiers lay in adjacent beds in the sickbay, having had pieces of shrapnel lodged in their legs. One of them said to the other, "All right, I've got an idea. When the nurse comes, we both make believe we've got a raging fever. We probably got each other infected." "Not bad," said the other soldier. "That'll keep us out of combat for a while." "There's just one thing," said the first soldier. "I might need to borrow some money. I can't afford the sickbay fees much longer." "I'd love to, buddy, but I'm almost out, too. What genius had the idea to make soldiers pay for their own healthcare?" "I don't know, but he must've been smart. How else would they get us back out in the war zone?" The nurse soon came. After watching their performance, she said, "It seems like everybody here's coming down with a fever. It's only the thermometers that don't notice." She wrote "fit for duty" in her notebook. * * * A soldier was driving a shipment of weapons from one base to the next. When the convoy stopped at a safe location for lunch, the soldier chatted with one of the men who were guarding the convoy. "Where're you from?" asked the soldier. "Nicaragua," said the guard. "Central America." "Nicaragua?" asked the soldier. "That doesn't look like a Nicaraguan uniform." "I am not in the Nicaraguan army," said the guard. "I am in private security." "Ah!" said the soldier. "Mercenaries, then. There're a lot of you guys around here, aren't there? It's just like in history books, with the Brits in the American revolution." "Yes, there are many of us, but it is not like in the old days. We are highly trained and experienced professionals." "Oh, yeah? How do you get trained to be a mercenary?" "Your government and army trained us, and we gained experience fighting Communists in Latin America. You have not heard about this?" "I guess not. Seems like our government gets around pretty well, doesn't it?" Then the soldier asked, "So why aren't we fighting Communists here in Iraq?" The mercenary answered, "Didn't you know? You are." * * * "We demand rights for workers living under this occupation!" cried a man at a demonstration, which looked something like a strike. "We want wages paid! We want food! We want to organize and fight! And we want the American soldiers to leave!" A soldier had been assigned to control the demonstration, and he had been told not to let anyone say words like this. He had been taught some words in Arabic, and he understood enough to know he should intervene. For it was likely that anyone who said such things was a terrorist. But the army did not have enough soldiers in the city, and so this soldier had to control the demonstration with only the help of the Iraqi police, which was not much help. The soldier walked up to the speaker, trying to appear tough. "Come here," he said. "The American soldiers don't want us to speak!" shouted the speaker. "They want to give our industry and our wealth and our cheap labor to American businesses. But we will not be silent!" The soldier grabbed the speaker. "Look," he said, "I've done my share of cheap labor, and I've never seen any of that wealth our businesses are supposed to be stealing. But you can't say that here. You can't say it here. Go somewhere else, not here." "Are you going to shoot me?" asked the speaker. "They told me to shoot anyone who looks suspicious." "Then you must ask for reinforcements, because you would have to shoot us all." The soldier let go of the speaker. He called his commanding officer to say he was in too much danger to take action alone, and he walked slowly and carefully back to his base. By the time any reinforcements could come, the demonstration was over. * * * A group of soldiers was on its way home for a short period of leave. It was a "domestic" flight. Before they took off, after giving safety instructions, a flight attendant announced, "We also want to thank our servicemen and women aboard the plane. We want them to know we support what they're doing for all of us." When the same flight attendant came back to the cabin later on, a soldier got her attention. "I wanted to ask you," he said, "just what is it about what we do that you support? Is it the torture, or the random arrests, or the firing on peaceful demonstrators? We also destroy poor people's homes and crack down on union organizing, if you prefer that. Or is it just the fact that we keep getting wounded and killed that you like?" The stewardess was angry. "I know the army can make mistakes. But I support our troops, whatever they do." The soldier asked, "Would you support me if I slapped you right now in the face?" The stewardess looked even angrier. Then the soldier asked, "Would you support me if my commanding officer ordered me to slap you?" The stewardess said, "I'd support you, and I'd tell your officer to go to hell." * * * On his way back to Iraq, a soldier was in an airport restroom. A young man saw his uniform and asked, "Where're you headed?" The soldier said, "Over there," and tilted his head, pointing in a direction that must have been east. "Come back soon," said the young man. The soldier nodded in partial salute. As he walked out of the restroom, he had an idea. * * * "Jones," "Here!" "Sanchez." "Here!" "Trudeau." "Here!" "Peterson." Silence. "Peterson!" Silence. "Where's Private Peterson?" One of the soldiers said, "He wasn't on the plane, sir!" "Where is he?" demanded the officer. "Where did he go?" "We haven't seen him sir! He isn't here!" "All right," said the officer. "We'll turn this over to Homeland Security. About face! March!" (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 20:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Are those supposed to be jokes or something? I didn't even catch half of them. (reply to this comment)

From Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Fucking Dear! Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 04:19 (Agree/Disagree?) 'Bush sent us to war, and we are still there 2 years later. It would be innapropriate to crticize the war effort while the war is taking place- because it destroys the morale of the soldiers who are risking their lives every day.' You, my friend, are a willing font of fascist propaganda! Literally, mate! Don't criticize the actions of the government for fear of undermining their efforts- Goebbels would have been fucking proud. You are swallowing the oldest plow of abusive power in the fucking history of authoritarianism: the distortion of nationalism. When they have got everyone in the world thinking like you, there will be no freedom left to be spoken of! If you're so sure of the righteousness of the cause, why aren't you out there with the armed forces yourself( unless you're disabled)? Unless I'm mistaken, you're still within the age range. Don't you find it a little alarming that a lot of the liberal voices on this website from your own country have actually served in the armed forces? But all the quoting of bible-verse goes a long way to explaining why you're a neo-con! '.....pray that God will give them the strength to plow on, that he will give them the wisdom to know what to do in difficult situations, that he will protect them, and that he will expedite their return home.' Dude, the Lord's protection counts for shit next to body armor! To quote E.B. Farnum (the innkeeper in Deadwood- As relevent as the Bible!) 'Pray on, moron, for all the damage it can do!' (reply to this comment)

From Fist Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 22:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I know you man!!!(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 13:09 (Agree/Disagree?) yes, you fucking do!(reply to this comment)

From Too Cool for This Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:42 (Agree/Disagree?) This cartoon describes the rightwingnuts position very well: http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19945 Regardless of what you think about liberals, you NeoCon boosters need to realize: It's not our fault that you went to war with a bad war plan. It's not our fault that Bush and Cheney KNOWINGLY lied to the American people about WMD's. It is not our fault that administration officials lied to the American people and told them Iraq would be a "cakewalk" and that we would be greeted as liberators. (A staged photo op with a couple hundred Chalabi thugs tearing down a statue doesn't count.) It's not our fault that, as a result of YOUR actions, the entire middle east is now threatened with instability and chaos. You don't have to believe me on this, but the next couple of years are going to be real rough on people with your world view. The situation in Iraq is bad, and it's only going to get worse. (And no, it won't be our fault either.)(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 20:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you "Too Cool To Be Fair" also? Can you show me documents proving that there are no WMD's in Iraq and none have been found? Whatever you heard on ABC or CBS doesn't count. Can you prove that the demonstration in Iraq where "a couple hundred Chalabi thugs" tore down the statue of Saddam was staged? I wonder what the people who were at the rally think of being referred to as "thugs". I have seen many, many more shots where the soldiers have been greeted as liberators. The ENTIRE Middle East is now threatened with instability and chaos? What about Lebanon? What about Libya? You know, a little instability in Iran could do more good than harm if the young people take over. They're tired of the Islamic republic.(reply to this comment)

From Thursday, February 23, 2006, 08:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Saddam as Both Friend and Foe Saddam Hussein was for decades an American supported and financed dictator put in power to become the tyrannical glue that held Iraq together, for years doing as he was told, becoming Washington’s thug in power, free to do as he wished regarding the internal manifestations of Iraq, financed militarily and economically as long as he kept the oil spigots running and as long as he kept the price of a barrel of crude within the price range limitations of his handlers in Washington. For decades he persecuted and oppressed both the Kurds and Shia, with a wink and a nod from the US government, enriching himself as he feasted on the spoils of Iraqi oil and American military and economic generosity. It was good to be the prostitute of the empire. When asked by Washington to destabilize Iran through war after the American sponsored tyrant and dictator – or shah – was deposed and the American Embassy – CIA station – held hostage thanks to the Iranian Revolution, Saddam embarked on a decade long battle against his eastern neighbor, using the vast arsenal of American manufactured weapons to punish Iran for its temerity in dethroning the empire’s despot that had for years been oppressing Iranian citizens, exploiting the nation’s wealth and pillaging its oil, all in the interests of the United States. Saddam, in gleeful cheer, was to unleash hell upon those who had dismantled one of the largest CIA operations in the Middle East, a network center masquerading as an embassy where all orders to the shah originated from and where many Iranian internal problems arose out of. As the war raged on the madness of Saddam became apparent, and, in a calculated and predictable move he, using chemical weapons technology supplied him by America’s government and corporate world, sent into the air WMD aimed at Iranian forces, killing untold thousands with weapons banned by international law, though with the full consent of American officials. It was these same WMD that would later be used by Saddam against the Kurds of northern Iraq, again killing untold hundreds or thousands in the dictator’s bid to oppress a rebellious minority. Saddam was a wicked tyrant, yet he was our wicked tyrant, and so not a word was uttered about his war crimes and crimes against humanity, and especially muted to our ears and made blind to our eyes was his use of American WMD technology against both Iranians and Kurds. He was our evildoer, just like so many before and after him, from all corners of the globe, from Marcos to Suharto to Pinochet to Batista to Mobutu, all dictators whose hands were made bloody by the support and encouragement America’s government engendered. Saddam maintained power in large part thanks to American generosity and financing, much the same as dozens of US supported dictators have for decades. It was only when he was no longer needed to further the interests of America that he became expendable. It was when his character exceeded his allotted power, when his ego thought itself capable of more than he could handle that he went from ally shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld to dictator and tyrant used to manipulate the fears of bed-wetting Americans. Once expendable, Saddam became, like all once-favored despots and freedom fighters whose usefulness has expired, a bogeyman used to captivate the minds of American citizens. Almost overnight Saddam became the reincarnation of Hitler, a dictator that prevented “freedom and democracy” from his people, a madman that had attacked his neighbor Kuwait, even though his neighbor was siphoning oil away from Iraqi fields and even though Kuwait had once been claimed by the peoples and lands of modern day Iraq, taken away from them by British interests at the turn of the 20th century and made a sovereign nation ruled by British supported monarchs. The machines of propaganda had been turned on and miraculously, Saddam’s use of WMD was shouted for the world to hear, images of rotting Kurdish corpses used to turn friend into foe, his mustache spawning fear and insecurity in the minds of America’s citizens. The merciless engine of propaganda had been turned on. Saddam’s mistake in invading Kuwait would doom Iraqi citizens for the next fifteen years, unleashing the human wickedness inherent in a war culture lacking the empathy and understanding of both history and culture. America’s weaponized instruments of death and army of conditioned automatons devastated Iraq and its population during the Gulf War, bombing cities, decimating infrastructure and destroying the ministries of governance. The aerial campaign, which in essence was the muscle of the war, dropped hundreds of tons of missiles upon unsuspecting targets, their potent payload killing untold numbers of innocent civilians. Cluster bombs, banned by the international community, were indiscriminately dropped from the sky above. Tomahawk missiles rained down upon homes and shelters and hospitals. The terrorism of the rich was unleashed on millions of Iraqi civilians. It can be surmised that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died at the hands of American terrorism, yet the real number will never be known because America does not do body counts, caring not an ounce for humans that are not American. From babies to pregnant women to mothers to boys and girls to peasant fathers to grandmothers and grandfathers, the toll of death was undoubtedly massive, for the aerial reign of terror was incessant, at all hours of the day and night. It was in this war where the concept of smart bombs was introduced and experimented in, resulting in massive error in targeting and countless “collateral damage.” Here in America, however, the spin masters at the Pentagon only showed us the minority of video that resulted in direct hits, becoming part of the propaganda that conditions and makes silent the masses. Led to believe that our toys were performing perfectly, we were never made aware of the utter devastation upon Iraq and its people. The misery and hatred and death and maiming engendered by our terrorism was conveniently whitewashed, made to disappear in a war with images only of “smart bombs” destroying their target. In the end, Saddam was left in power, much to the detriment of millions, and much to the poor health of hundreds if not thousands of Kurds and Shia rebels who had been given assurances from America that they would be supported in their attempt to oust a clearly weakened Saddam. They, of course, were betrayed by George Bush, Sr., which resulted in the subsequent slaughter of most rebels by Saddam’s forces. In his infinite wisdom, Bush the Wiser decided against sending his forces to invade and occupy Baghdad, knowing full well the consequences of such an idiotic move. Instead, he maintained an aerial bombing campaign that would last until the start of the next Gulf War. More cruel and evil than the actual bombing or the Gulf War was the economic genocide imposed on the Iraqi people under the guise of sanctions. During the 1990’s, under the rubric of WMD disarmament and failure to obey United Nations resolutions, Iraq was stripped of its ability to purchase and import vital medicines and nutrient rich food. For over ten years these sanctions debilitated Iraq’s once shining health system and social services, creating an anemic organization unable to provide adequate healthcare to its citizens along with the necessary foodstuffs needed for survival. Thanks to these sanctions, sponsored, supported and policed by America, anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 Iraqi civilians died, 500,000 of them children below the age of five. Dying of malnourishment, disease, illness, hunger and lack of medicine, where ordinarily under normal conditions few would die, Iraqis were made to bear the spear of American imposed genocide. Quite simply, that is what the sanctions should be called in the books of history, for in few instances do we call the death of over one-million innocent civilians, half of them young children, merely sanctions. Make no mistake about it, America stands guilty of genocide and mass murder, as well as in callously perpetuating a suffering never before seen in the lands of Mesopotamia. The economic sanctions imposed devastated an entire generation of children, resulting in the death of half a million under age five as well as stunting the growth, and the development of the brain in millions more thanks to the unavailability of food and medicine. Collective punishment of an entire population was introduced to 25 million Iraqis, most of whom had to survive on rations and through smuggled medicines, all made to suffer for a WMD program that had been abandoned and dismantled, as well as for a war culture that refused to feel the empathy for human suffering and the full consequences to its actions. The human calamity that ensued is a crime against humanity, holding hostage millions who lay on the brink of death, absorbing immeasurable damage to body and mind, unable to escape the mass murder taking place around them. Economic genocide is genocide nonetheless, and America should be ashamed for what it helped perpetuate. Yet according to Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, “the price [was] worth it.” During the next decade of sanctions, hospitals and schools fell into disrepair, sewers ran open and onto streets, the Tigris and Euphrates filled with human waste and garbage, electricity and food were in short supply and the entire population took a nose dive backwards in time. Meanwhile, the aerial terrorism that only wealthy nations can maintain never let up, resulting in perpetual terror and fear, not to mention incredible levels of stress and anxiety, and in the random bombing of homes and buildings and places of governance. For over a decade the people and nation of Iraq was not allowed to escape the human hell brought to its borders. The powers that were had decided to make Iraq an example, ruining the lives of its people, murdering 1.5 million people, letting an entire nation rot in the refuse of human decrepitude and to severely regress backwards in time a nation that had previously been among the emerging modern and secular nations of the Middle East. With the start of the Iraq/Bush War in 2003, what seemed bad was about to get much, much worse, as the entire military apparatus of the world’s foremost war culture was brought inside the once ancient lands of Mesopotamia. Thousands of tons of munitions, artillery and missiles have exploded inside Iraq, devastating, once again, homes, cities, streets, buildings, hospitals and ministries. Though liberated from the reign of Saddam, Iraq still finds itself lacking adequate electricity, gasoline, medicines and other vital supplies. The reconstruction promised by America has never and will never be delivered, as billions of dollars budgeted for rebuilding a nation in ruins have disappeared, pillaged by war profiteers and corrupt politicians from both sides of the ocean. Anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 innocent civilians have died as a result of America’s occupation of Iraq, all dead because of lies, deceit, greed and love of the Almighty dollar, all dead thanks to incompetence, imbecility and ignorance, all dead thanks to America's silence, indifference, complicity and our addiction to comfort. The occupation has resulted in a classic guerilla warfare resistance by Iraqis fighting for the freedom of their nation and the expelling of occupying forces. This has resulted in tremendous suffering, deep insecurities and fears and an escalating cycle of violence, both against civilians and American forces, that threatens to leave Iraq in a perpetual state of violence and chaos. The initial stages of civil war are apparent, and the real threat of Balkanization, where Iraq splits up into three separate mini-states, cannot be ruled out. To read more go to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11680.htm(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, February 23, 2006, 21:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, just because we don't go to war with a nation right away, doesn't mean the US government giving Saddam "a wink and a nod". Does this mean that the US government is giving China "a wink and a nod" on thier many human rights violations? Or is the US government just being wise and acting in our best interests by not making war with a nation at least twice as powerful as us? What in the world is aerial terrorism? Surely you can't be talking about warplanes, even the UN has those. When a soldier of a genuine army drops a bomb on command from a superior, that is called war, not aerial terrorism. Soldiers of genuine armies have ranks, uniforms, white flags, and military ID. When a soldier in a genuine army tells you what country he is fighting for, that country can be found on a map ("Islam", "Allah", and "jihad" are not considered countries). The reconstruction of Iraq that was promised has not been delivered because our soldiers are in the process of delivering it! IED's and ambushes from foreigners who have no business in Iraq are not going to help them fullfil these new missions any faster. If the pase at which the soldiers are helping to reconstruct Iraq is to slow for this journalist's tastes, maybe he should go to Iraq and help! Doesn't informationclearinghouse.info screen their journalists before they publish their articles? An article like this with such a slant, that is so easily disproven, sure makes their site look bad. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, February 23, 2006, 08:32 (Agree/Disagree?) ... like I could even be bothered to read everything you've posted here! Ever heard of a summary? Why don't we look at all this in context, in politics, as with every other aspect of our lives, we must make compromises, cooperating with parties with whom we may not agree 100% in order to achieve a shared goal. Saddam was not 'put' in power by the West, he gained power through a series of coups (yes, he staged a second coup to oust his fellow conspirators from the first time around, and gain absolute control of government). However, the West was prepared to support him so long as he was fighting Iran (which was, in turn, supported by Communist Russia), it was a strategic compromise in order to stave off a far greater enemy (or in this case two - Communism and radical Shiism) and classic case of enemy-of-my-enemy. As soon as that war ended there was no longer a strategic interest in supporting him, meaning the West was no longer prepared to allow him the same latitude - he, however, refused to recognise this shift, and deluded himself into thinking that he could continue to do exactly as he wished not only without the support of - but now in direct opposition to - the international community.(reply to this comment)

From what if series Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:51 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds like Berg speaking. Hey why don't you start your own "What If series." (reply to this comment)

From WTF ??? Monday, December 12, 2005, 23:12 (Agree/Disagree?) The "What if" series was where Berg questioned whether his predictions on the Endtime were true. What has that got to do with the above post? Do you know who originally predicted a possible military disaster in Iraq? Read this: Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. (reply to this comment)

From sailor Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds like Berg speaking. Hey why don't you start your own "What If" series since you know that the (reply to this comment)

From sailor Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds like Berg speaking. Hey why don't you start your own "What If" series since you know that (reply to this comment)

From sailor Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds like Berg speaking. Hey why don't you start your own "What If" series since you know (reply to this comment)

From sailor Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds like Berg speaking. Hey why don't you start your own "What If" series since you (reply to this comment)

From sailor Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds like Berg speaking. Hey why don't you start your own "What If" series since (reply to this comment)

From sailor Monday, December 12, 2005, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds like Berg speaking. Hey why don't you start your own "What If" series (reply to this comment)

From Templar Monday, December 12, 2005, 15:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Such as ?(reply to this comment)

from Baxter Monday, December 12, 2005 - 15:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you for fucking real? I don't get you for one second! (reply to this comment)

from exister Monday, December 12, 2005 - 13:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Apparently you have nothing interesting or original to say so you post plugs for right wing, war mongering TV shows. Keep crap like this to yourself! The thinking people of the world don't give a shit what is playing on Fox News Channel. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 12, 2005, 18:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Exister, there is a time to heal and a time to kill. And there is a time to kill, so that healing can begin. I'll be honest with you, I kind of would have preferred what Clinton attempted- I think it was in 1996. The CIA was watching Saddam Hussein, and more than likely a few others, and was ready to set up a friendly government there. I'm not going to blame it on Clinton, but let's just say things didn't work out. 1996 was a simpler time- we still had our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, the Twin Towers,the Pentagon, and Al Qaeda was probably not working in Iraq yet. It sure would have been a whole lot easier than pouring soldiers into Iraq while we already have a prescence in Afghanistan. There is a time to heal, and a time to kill. Think about it. Otherwise buttheads like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy would still be alive. I could go on, but apparently I have nothing interesting or original to say :o ) I will however leave you with one of my favorite quotes these days: "If you love peace more than you love freedom, you lose.", Dick Armey(reply to this comment)

From Yes, a wise man Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 17:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Would that be the same insightful Dick Armey who gave the cult a "Freedom Works Award"? Here he poses with Sam Lloyd, Cindy Thompson, Lisa Salazar and Brian Edwards: http://www.thefamily.org/work/article.php3?id=172(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, December 15, 2005, 19:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I am fully aware of the Freedom Works Award. I made a concious decision not to click no the link you provided bcause I do not want to see that disgusting picture again. However, if merely presenting an award (which anyone could have awarded them) to The Family makes one a bad or unwise person, that would make Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton bad/unwise as well. The Family got the priviledge of singing at the White House for Christmas on numerous occasions before such performances were stopped completely because of security concerns after 9/11. Don't forget that The Family is a group made up of master manipulators. See ya later. As Alan Jackson might sing: "It's all right, (it's all right) It's all right, (it's all right) It's all right to be a systemite."(reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 12:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, your tediously repetitive regurgitation of the Fiddler On The Roof lyrics that were crammed down your throat by The Family rather tidily proves my conjecture that you are uncapable of original thought. You grew up getting skull fucked by a fanatical, fundie cult and now you are taking it in your other eye socket from the NeoCons. Congratulations!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, December 15, 2005, 19:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Fundamentalist? My goodness, I never knew that fundamentalists have regular orgies, dream of sex with the Holy Spirit and godesses, and abuse their own children. The family was very liberal, and very far from fundamentalist. The only time they even gave the impression of being fundamentalists is when they wanted money or goods from their contacts. David Berg was against fundamentalism, he called it "legalism". He believed anything Paul said that he desagreed with could be explained away as Paul's opinion. Not very fundamentalist, I must say. He believed the restrictions against adultery and incest in the Bible were outdated. You call that fundamentalist? He believe the angel Gabriel actually comitted FORNICATION with Mary and the result of that sin was Jesus, who was sinless and died on the cross to make atonement for MY sins. Would you like to rephrase your statement about where I was raised? Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterised by a return to fundamentalist principles (not a departure from them, as David Berg did) and by RIGID adherance to them. (American Heritage College Dictionary) I'm a virgin, by the way, and resent the insinuation that I grew up skull fucked. One day, just to prove you guys wrong, I will write an article stating everything I dislike about conservatives, as I am more than capable of making up my own mind.(reply to this comment)

From The Thickness of the soup... Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 22:26 (Agree/Disagree?) That is a preposterous quote.. you must be thick as shit..(reply to this comment)

From Lance Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 01:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Spoken like a true Bible thumping American! What the hell are you doing, reciting something you read on the internet? Jesus fucking christ! I would think that some one who came from our background would at least have the decency to know a fucking liar when they see one; but you can't seem to see through Bush's glaring conservative agenda long enough to realize that he is a liar. What part of his stupid, cowboy logic don't you understand? The war in Iraq is a mistake because there is no real getting out of it. It is a mistake because you can't put a gun to peoples head and force them to be free, they must choose that freedom for themselves. It is a mistake because of the lies that were told in order to get us involved in the war in the first place. It is a mistake because Bush has always hated Saddam and is in a virtual shouting match with political leaders that he doesn't like(e.g. Kim Jong Ill), having no sense of proper diplomacy. It is a mistake because this war is not about terrorism and it never was. It is a mistake because Bush wants to keep idiots like you waiving their flags and sing him praises; keeping you in fear of the next Abasayid Muhammad that may cross your path. The fear of terrorism is the next supposed communist infiltration. Do you rally want to surrender the freedom that you have so that some McCarthyist crusader can use your fear for his own sordid purpose? Rise up and call a spade a spade for fuck sake!(reply to this comment)

From GG Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 03:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Saddam was a spade. Osama Bin Laden is a spade. Michael Moore is a spade. WTF do you have against cowboys anyway? Our forefathers were cowboys. The president is acting in the best interests of the American people. Of course your to feeble minded to see the big picture.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 20:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I considered joining the army, but the army doesn't want people with asthma. At least that's what they told me. By the way, my asthma also cut short a trip to the "mission field" of Bogota, Colombia when I was almost 7. Turns out thin mountain air is not good for people with asthma. Besides the leaders at the home there were pricks anyway, as was the area "shepherd" from what I've heard. There is "getting out of Iraq". However, it takes time. You can't just cut and run, as John Kerry would have had us think. Maybe back in 1996 we could have done things a little quicker, but you can't live in the past. Noone is surrendering freedom here. The terrorists are the ones who are trying to destroy our rights. The US government needs the Patriot Act to protect you and me from the terrorists, because they are the ones with the "sordid purpose".(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 20:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Correct me (and write me a double demerit) if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure the United States didn't put a gun to anyone's head and make them vote in the early election today. Normally you don't have to put a gun to someone's head and force them to be free, but you may have to put a gun to the head of the people oppressing them. That is, if they don't run out of supplies and come out of their spider hole with their hands up. I must say I may not have had the restraint that the US Army did. If I saw Saddam Hussein, I would have blown his brains out- other than take him in for food and medical care on American tax dollars. PS: I wouldn't make a very good soldier : o ) What lies were we told? If I read the book I suggested earlier, "Disinformation"- you just might find that the media is also pumping out a lot of lies. The President is Commander in Chief, not a journalist. While the President should make every effort to verify his sources, if they turn out to be wrong it is not completely his fault.(reply to this comment)

From Korpesco Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 07:18 (Agree/Disagree?) War is morally necessary, when circumstances dictate that evil must be stopped. Absolutism and oppression is opposed to the western ideology of democracy and justice. If one wishes to maintain the moral fiber that holds our society together one must act against that which threatens our ideology and way of life. When, like in Iraq under Saddam, injustice and violence against the innocent is found, the morally strong take action. The war in Iraq defended international order and human rights against unjust aggressors. America and Britain refused to be complicit in the policy of appeasement. To do otherwise would be to join Saddam's conspiracy against what our society stands for. Human rights are important to us in proportion as to how ready we are to defend them against those that violate them. If the 20th century and WWII should have taught us one thing it should have be that we ought to act quickly and decisively against tyrants. There are too many Chamberlains in this thread, nice ideologies with no backbone in reality.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 15:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh yeah!? So why doesn't the US and Britain go to war with let's say, China? Or how about itty bitty North Korea that has no resources to offer their victor? Or how about Saudi Arabia? The logic doesn't follow the action--or else the US would be defending the helpless in other countries. The US started the war based on lies, they have lied to the public about actions during the war. I have nothing against the individual soldier, I would not malign them or abuse them, but I have something against their leaders, and fully do NOT support the war in Iraq. Sorry, I don't agree with your views. And if injustice and violence against the innocent is a time for the morally strong to take action, then we should be taking action against an injust a violent lying American government.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 15:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Are we talking about the same China here? 300 million soldiers China? One soldier for every citizen in this country China? Dear God, I hope you never become President of the United States : o ) The Chinese government is guilty of terrible things. But as a Commander in Chief responsible for the survival of an entire nation, you have to exercise a little more wisdom and a little more tact than that. As long as China is willing to have talks with us, there is no doubt in my mind we can handle these things diplomatically. After all, Americans are some of China's best customers. If we had invaded North Korea, we may well have made an enemy of the nation mentioned above. Not a good idea. While I believe Saudi Arabia to be an enemy of our country, they are cooperating with us in the large scale War on Terror. Yes, I doubt their motives, but sometimes you just have to take what you can get. Plus Saudi Arabia isn't trying to make nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein was. Any sworn enemy that has nuclear weapons or is trying to make them is a threat. What does Saudi Arabia have, besides oil? Who needs oil? The oil in Iraq sure isn't doing us any good! We tried to handle things diplomatically with Iraq. Remember when we gave Saddam Hussein three days to step down and turn himself in? If Saddam Hussein gave a damn about trying to save his own people from an invasion (which will always be an inconvenience), he would have turned himself in back then. I've said it before, and I'll say it again- it would have been so much easier and so many lives on both sides could have been saved if we had worked out our plan in 1996. But you can't live in the past. And again, I'm not trying to place the blame on Clinton when I say that. (reply to this comment)

From Otter Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) That's new last I heard they had around 80 million. I guess they have expanded. (The Chinese army that is)(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, December 15, 2005, 19:32 (Agree/Disagree?) The last I heard the CIA Factbook states China has 300 million soldiers. 80 million is probably the number of those considered ready for active duty.(reply to this comment)

From Otter Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) That's new last I heard they had around 80 million. I guess they have expanded. (The Chinese army that is)(reply to this comment)

From Korpesco Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 09:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Your logic follows "why try help anyone at all if you cant help everyone". Of course there are situations all over that are unjust and dictatorial where the human rights that we take for granted are non existant. But when cultures and ideologies clash I hope mine comes out dominant. Bush eliminated a threat that could have become eminent and in doing so hoped to make his nation and the middle east region a safer place. “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.” ~ G.W. Bush (reply to this comment)

From Lance Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 11:53 (Agree/Disagree?) You cannot compare Saddam with Hitler! You cannot compare todays world with that of WW2. A better comparison here would be with the US involvement with Iran in the 70's. Of course we all know how peachy that turned out to be. Hitler killed some 6 million jews in genocide, and was largely responsible for a war that cost the world some 60 million lives(my numbers could be off and I didn't look this up). By all accounts I believe that Saddam killed 50,000 of his own people. While this is horrible in itself, it is hardly comparable to Hitler. The US invasion of Iraq has thus far led to approximately 30,000 civilian deaths. So while we are not on a genocidal campaign as Saddam was, our actions in that region has caused a lot of unnecessary deaths. Sitting back and justifying such a catastrophic loss of life is a comparable trait amongst dictators and tyrants.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 16:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeahhhhh.... He ONLY killed 50,000 people. He an't THAT bad... (reply to this comment)

From ramona Sunday, January 15, 2006, 12:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Y cuantos a matado bush, imbecil.(reply to this comment)

From GG Sunday, January 15, 2006, 13:33

From Lance Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 10:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Please tell me where in my post was I defending Saddam? I was merely saying that you cannot compare him to Hitler, and as a result of our occupation, there has been a comparable loss of life. The war in Iraq is a futile one.(reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 12:00 (Agree/Disagree?) So is staying up late every night watching westerns.(reply to this comment)

From Lance Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 11:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry, that would be Iran in the 1950's.(reply to this comment)

From Otter Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 12:46 (Agree/Disagree?) As far as I know this was in the 70s as the cult was very chummy with the Shah's daughter. Unless the cult was around in the 50s, it was difinitely the 70s. The fall of the Shah was the rising of Saddam.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 08:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Blatantly, you don't know your history, mate!(reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 08:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Expound.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 05:25 (Agree/Disagree?) So glad to see that you're not simply spouting the left-wing and anarchist propaganda that's a dime-a-dozen on the internet these days!(reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Monday, December 12, 2005 - 13:13 (Agree/Disagree?) You have got to be kiddin' ME!!! Big Deal! Although many of us may support our troops in Iraq and at least somewhat support the war for oil and MidEast Peace, Still our long backgrounds of anti-war sentiment, anti-US preaching, and general anti-government teaching Crammed down our throats our whole lives--It's no wonder we don't feel gullible enough to believe a news broadcast on the Iraqi, Pro-Democracy incentive! (reply to this comment)

From tastypants Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 00:56 (Agree/Disagree?) shit i believe the war in iraq i fuckin awesome i have many friends in the armed forces and they are doing a great job there fuck all them terrorist, they will all get whats coming to them, this is the best thing that has ever happened to thier country, who gives a shit about bush its about fighting a bunch of motherfucking idiots who like to fight for the losing side just like them fucking culties i say fuck them all, and fuck you if you got some smart ass comment to make cuz i will fuckin wash your mouth out with soap and resist you in jesus's name, and then you will mark yourself up with a double demerit and i will paddle you with a flyswatter while you memorize the book of matthew while jerking off, if you got a problem go fuck you aunties and uncles who want you to make love to jesus (even thought your a dude), cuz jesus luvs homosexuals hahahahahaha oh and if your black jesus says "you can;t be in the family" seriously how many of you people were in the family???????? hmmmmm simon black and ummmmmmm nobody.....lol.....berg is a biggot.....he was a member of the KKK i looked it up, he says that you people killed jesus with the jews because you were their slaves and you made the cross that jesus was crucified on,,,, go give yourselves a double demerit and go make love to the holy spirit..... ooooohhh fill me with your seeeds.....fuck me in the ass with your giant penis.....and yes i am a rotton apple and the devil did plant the evul seeeds in me but not in a gay way he did it with a hot slut..lol.....and yes i am a Mene case i am possesed by the devil,,,,i worship satin,,,i eat poo, i kill fo fun,,, i watch non rated movies oooooohhhh noooooo,,,,, i also fuck your mom so i rule peace out biaaaaatchsssssss(reply to this comment)

From ramona Sunday, January 15, 2006, 12:25 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From tudaisy Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 13:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, your so smart and eloquent with your writing and thought pattern you must have been home schooled(reply to this comment)

From placebo Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 10:04 (Agree/Disagree?) First you diss homosexuals and then you say you worship satin. Things were so much easier when we were 12 and we would pick on the American kid in our home together:-)(reply to this comment)

From Jedran Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 00:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Or the French one individually(reply to this comment)

From Bones Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 09:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Your'e a riot dude! Quality material.(reply to this comment)