Liberal confessional here.

[method man]

we cannot afford to invade anymore nations, because it is just piling on to the national debt. this generation is leaving our generation and many future ones a mountain of debt to conquer.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by method man

Art,

The only thing about Iraq that I support is our soldiers. Once the troops leave Iraq, it is going to become another extremist country, which will be dominated by the influence of Iran.

I agree and disagree. Of course, I support the troops. And I don't really support anything else about it, other than the fact that at least the Iraqis don't have to deal with Saddam anymore (again, at what cost?).

It won't be an extremist country, at least completely. It'll fall into civil war, and break into three separate countries (Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites). After that, it all depends on what goverments take shape. They certainly won't be influenced by Iran, though. They hate each other.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by method man

we cannot afford to invade anymore nations, because it is just piling on to the national debt. this generation is leaving our generation and many future ones a mountain of debt to conquer.

Actually, the national debt and the war have nothing to do with each other. The war is contributing to the budget deficit, not the national debt.

Just figured you'd rather it come from a liberal.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by method man

Art,

The only thing about Iraq that I support is our soldiers. Once the troops leave Iraq, it is going to become another extremist country, which will be dominated by the influence of Iran.

Hey man, have you been paying attention to anything going on in Iraq today? Or are you one of those "glass is 1/2 empty" types that will find the negative, and gloom and doom in everything?

It looks to me like the Iraqis are saying HELL NO to the exact scenario you describe in your post. Why not get with the program man. How about a little optimism. Even you have to admit that todays voter turnout is surprising. I was optimistic, and even I'm surprised by the large turnout.

[Commander PK]

Iraq Voters Defy Threats, Boycott Calls

6 minutes ago Top Stories - AP

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote_66

By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis embraced democracy in large numbers Sunday, standing in long lines to vote in defiance of mortar attacks, suicide bombers and boycott calls. Pushed in wheelchairs or carts if they couldn't walk, the elderly, the young and women in veils cast ballots in Iraq (news - web sites)'s first free election in a half-century.

"We broke a barrier of fear," said Mijm Towirish, an election official said.

Uncertain Sunni turnout, a string of insurgent attacks that killed 44 and the crash of a British military plane drove home that chaos in Iraq isn't over yet.

Yet the mere fact the vote went off seemed to ricochet instantly around a world hoping for Arab democracy and fearing Islamic extremism.

"I am doing this because I love my country, and I love the sons of my nation," said Shamal Hekeib, 53, who walked with his wife 20 minutes to a polling station near his Baghdad home.

"We are Arabs, we are not scared and we are not cowards," Hekeib said.

With helicopters flying low and gunfire close by, at least 200 voters stood calmly in line at midday outside one polling station in the heart of Baghdad. Inside, the tight security included at least four body searches, and a ban on lighters, cell phone batteries, cigarette packs and even pens.

The feeling was sometimes festive. One election volunteer escorted a blind man back to his home after he cast his vote. A woman too frail to walk by herself arrived on a cart pushed by a young relative. Entire families showed up in their finest clothes.

But for the country's minority Sunni Arabs, who held a privileged position under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), the day was not as welcome.

No more than 400 people voted in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, and in the heavily Sunni northern Baghdad neighborhood of Azamiyah, where Saddam made his last known public appearance in early April 2003, the four polling places never even opened.

Iraqi election officials said it might take 10 days to determine the vote's winner and said they had no firm estimate of turnout among the 14 million eligible voters. The ticket endorsed by the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was the pre-voting favorite. Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's slate was also considered strong.

"The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," said President Bush (news - web sites), who called the election a success. He promised the United States would continue training Iraqi soldiers, hoping they can soon secure a country America invaded nearly two years ago to topple Saddam.

Iraqis, the U.S. president said, had "firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology" of terrorists.

The vote to elect a 275-National Assembly and 18 provincial legislatures was only the first step on Iraq's road to self-rule and stability. Once results are in, it could take weeks of backroom deals before a prime minister and government are picked by the new assembly.

If that government proves successful by drawing in the minority Sunni Arabs who partly shunned the election, the country could stabilize, hastening the day when 150,000 U.S. troops can go home.

On Sunday, coalition soldiers raced through Baghdad's streets in Humvees and tried to coax people to vote with loudspeakers in Ramadi, a Sunni city where anti-U.S. attacks are frequent. Iraqi police served as guards at most polling stations and U.S. troops had strict orders to stay away unless Iraqi security forces called for help.

At the Louisiana National Guard headquarters near Baghdad, nervous U.S. officers paced the halls, muttering, "So far, so good," after the first 30 minutes of polling passed without attacks.

But the violence soon broke out.

While a driving ban seemed to discourage car bombs, the insurgents improvised, strapping on belts of explosives to launch their suicide missions.

At least 44 died in the suicide and mortar attacks on polling stations, including nine suicide bombers. The al-Qaida affiliate led by Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi claimed responsibility for at least four attacks.

Most attacks were in Baghdad, but one of the deadliest came in Hillah to the south, when a bomber got onto a minibus carrying voters and detonated his explosives, killing himself and at least four others.

In another reminder of the dangers that persist in Iraq, a British C-130 Hercules transport plane crashed north of Baghdad. The wreckage was strewn over a large area. British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said there were British deaths but did not give the number or the cause. Elsewhere, one U.S. serviceman died in fighting in the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province west of Baghdad.

Despite the string of attacks and mortars that boomed first in the morning and then after dark, a people steeled to violence by years of war, sanctions, the brutality of Saddam's regime and U.S. military occupation were not deterred from the polls.

In the so-called "triangle of death" south of Baghdad, a whiskery, stooped Abed Hunni walked an hour with his wife to reach a polling site in Musayyib. "God is generous to give us this day," he said.

And in heavily Shiite areas in the far south and mostly Kurdish regions in the north, some saw the vote as settling a score with the former dictator, Saddam.

"Now I feel that Saddam is really gone," said Fatima Ibrahim, smiling as she headed home after voting in Irbil. She was 14 and a bride of just three months when her husband, father and brother were rounded up in a campaign of ethnic cleansing under Saddam. None have ever been found.

Many cities in the Sunni triangle north and west of the capital, particularly Fallujah, Ramadi and Beiji, were virtually empty of voters also.

A low Sunni turnout, if that turns out to be the case, could undermine the new government that will emerge from the vote and worsen tensions among the country's ethnic, religious and cultural groups.

Adnan Pachachi, a Sunni elder statesman and candidate for the National Assembly, said he believes the best hope for harmony lies in giving Sunnis a significant role in drafting the country's new constitution.

"The main thing, I think, is we should really have a constitution written by representatives of all segments of Iraq's population," Pachachi said. "I think it would improve the security situation."

Across the largely authoritarian-ruled Arab world, where dislike and distrust of U.S. power and American intentions dominates the public debate, some dismissed the poll as a U.S.-orchestrated sham. Others hoped it might prove a catalyst for a region-wide democratic push.

Iraq's elections are a "good omen for getting rid of dictatorship," said Yemeni political science student Fathi al-Uraiqi.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites) — sure to win his own country's much-less-democratic vote later this year — telephoned Allawi to congratulate him on the smooth election, saying he hoped it would "open the way for the restoration of calm and stability" in Iraq.

____

Associated Press writers Bassem Mroue, Hamza Hendawi, Sameer N. Yacoub and Jason Keyser contributed to this report.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

You live in a world of color Art . In a nation of 300 million you want everyone to agree, isnt that somewhat misguided? This aint communist Russia- we all dont have to have the same opinion- no matter how much you dont like the other opinion.

Freedom alos means freedome to critizie and freedom of opinion. When we get to the point that its " my opinion or nothing". What makes us different than those countries we are trying to free.

Ahh but that was the point:

He wasnt saying you have to have the same opinion because its not possible.. But today was the day he chose to say: Your side of the opinion was wrong this time and if you wish to apologize it was this space.

You obviously don't apply because you never cared.. right?

I'll come back in 5 years and ask the same question if any of this spreads to its neighbors.. We already got a couple of countries to stop/turn in some of their crap so that part of it should have made you happy.

You answered the question right in your own question: The countries WE are trying to Free... don't see that too often do you? When was the last timey you turned on the news and heard. France was almost dont freeing the Sudan and elections were coming.. Or that China was in the process of Freeing Taiwan?

You don't, this is the only country on the Planet that voluntarily goes out and sacrifices its troops to free the oppressed... Even if you only hear of it sparingly with Bosnia, Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq...

(And yes, every time is not a perfect success)...

[Commander PK]

Bush Declares Iraq Election a Success

23 minutes ago Top Stories - AP

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050130/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) called Sunday's elections in Iraq (news - web sites) a success and promised the United States will continue trying to prepare Iraqis to secure their own country.

"The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," Bush told reporters at the White House on Sunday, four hours after the polls closed. He did not take questions after his three-minute statement.

Bush praised the bravery of Iraqis who turned out to vote despite continuing violence and intimidation. Bush said voters "firmly rejected the antidemocratic ideology" of terrorists.

Iraqis defied threats of violence and calls for a boycott to cast ballots in their first free election in a half-century Sunday.

Insurgents struck polling stations with a string of suicide bombings and mortar volleys, killing at least 44 people, including nine suicide bombers.

"Some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens," Bush said. He also mourned the loss of American and British troops killed Sunday.

Bush cautioned that the election will not end violence in Iraq, but said U.S. forces will continue training and helping Iraqis "so this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security."

In a statement Sunday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass, said Bush "must look beyond the election."

"The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the administration to withdraw some troops now" and negotiate further withdrawals, Kennedy added.

Earlier Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said Iraqi will now work to reduce ethnic or sectarian differences, and the United States will discuss the continued need for outside security forces with the newly elected Iraqi government.

"We all recognize the Iraqis have a long road ahead of them," Rice said on CBS' "Face The Nation."

"The insurgency is not going to go away as a result of today," Rice added.

Rice would not say whether U.S. forces will leave the country in great numbers after the vote, and Bush did not mention any U.S. military withdrawals.

So far, more than 1,400 U.S. troops and many thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives. The United States is spending more than $1 billion a week in Iraq.

Rice said the election went better than expected, but did not elaborate on U.S. predictions for turnout, violence or other measures.

In Iraq, officials said turnout among the 14 million eligible voters appeared higher than the 57 percent they had predicted. Complete voting results are not expected for days.

Polls were largely deserted all day in many cities of the Sunni Triangle. In Baghdad's mainly Sunni Arab area of Azamiyah, the neighborhood's four polling centers did not open at all, residents said.

A low Sunni turnout could undermine the new government and worsen tensions among the country's ethnic, religious and cultural groups.

"It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote," Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., said on NBC's "Meet The Press."

The Bush administration has a great deal riding on the election. Strong turnout and results that the world views as legitimate could speed the departure of American troops.

A stable Iraqi government could help mend alliances frayed by international opposition to the U.S.-led invasion, and Republicans on the ballot in 2006 and 2008 also would be relieved. Success could also buttress Bush's long-term goal to promote democracy across the Middle East, where family dynasties and authoritarian rulers outnumber democracies.

Problems with the election could complicate Bush's foreign policy aims, as well as the success of costly items on his second-term domestic agenda, such as partially privatizing Social Security (news - web sites).

Iraq's Shiite majority was widely expected to dominate the government that emerges from Sunday's elections, and some of the highest initial turnout reports came from overwhelmingly Shiite areas.

Even with lower turnout among Sunni Arabs, the government can be representative of all Iraqis, Rice said. She also downplayed concerns that a Shiite-dominated government will morph into a theocracy.

"I'm sure that they will have a healthy debate about the role of Islam, about the role of religion in that society," Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition."

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

How is Saddam , a secularist that allowed, booze and basically maginalized the extreme religious right in his own country, impacting Fundamentalism? That does not make a lick of sense?

If you want freedom... go for it on your own and create YOUR OWN system- if they go for a more islamic state - theres not **** we can do about it.

Im still in it for Bin Laden, the master mind , for if you kill the head the body will die.

Im not suprised that some muslims do believe its an attack on thier religion, its just going to make them more pissed and become more extreme and possibly terroist.

I will never apologize for trying to avoid the above situation.

Hell we live in a nation where if you say take out a line in a pledge people willt thinks its an attack on religion:rolleyes:

This whole thing about Saddam being a secularist is complete BS. His government was secular for practical, political reasons only. Saddam IS A MUSLIM. He supported muslim causes when it suited him and what is worse had a history of using his religion to further gain power and influence. Saddam was not a moral secularist any more than he was a devout Muslim. He used whatever position suited him at the time. He portrayed himself as a modern day Saladin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin ) and often used religious (extremist muslim) propagana in his speeches.

As for bin Laden being the head of a snake, that snake has many heads. Killing bin Laden will not end Islamic terrorism. The way to end it is to teach the people there that we are not the enemy. That could never happen while someone like Saddam was controling the press and telling them we were the cause of their suffering while he lived in grand opulence. Right now you can see the people of Iraq thankfull for America's help and support. Look at them dancing in the streets, LITERALLY dancing in the streets. They outnumber the terrorists 10,000 to one. THAT is how we will end Islamic terrorism. Not by sitting here at home and letting dictators like Saddam tell them how evil America is.

[Commander PK]

"It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote," Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., said on NBC's "Meet The Press."

I'm getting so sick and tired of Kerry's defeatist attitude. Thank God this loser didn't win the election, and you can quote me on that!

Edit: He's not a leader. He's a whiner and crybaby. You can quote me on that also. :cuss: You can almost sense the fear coming from high ranking Dems like Kerry and Kennedy, that this whole thing might actually work after all.

[Chopper Dave]

Originally posted by Painkiller

I'm getting so sick and tired of Kerry's defeatist attitude. Thank God this loser didn't win the election, and you can quote me on that!

While I won't go as far as being glad he lost (simply because of who won), he needs to stop b*tching.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Ahh but that was the point:

He wasnt saying you have to have the same opinion because its not possible.. But today was the day he chose to say: Your side of the opinion was wrong this time and if you wish to apologize it was this space.

You obviously don't apply because you never cared.. right?

I'll come back in 5 years and ask the same question if any of this spreads to its neighbors.. We already got a couple of countries to stop/turn in some of their crap so that part of it should have made you happy.

You answered the question right in your own question: The countries WE are trying to Free... don't see that too often do you? When was the last timey you turned on the news and heard. France was almost dont freeing the Sudan and elections were coming.. Or that China was in the process of Freeing Taiwan?

You don't, this is the only country on the Planet that voluntarily goes out and sacrifices its troops to free the oppressed... Even if you only hear of it sparingly with Bosnia, Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq...

(And yes, every time is not a perfect success)...

Just a small point. We're not the only country sacrificing our troops to free the oppressed. Great Britain has contributed many of her troops, as have other members of the coalition.

This also isn't the first time in history a country has tried to free oppressed peoples with their armies. It was arguably a major component of our getting involved in WW2 ... I also seem to remember something called the Crusades that happenned a long time ago.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by method man

Art,

The only thing about Iraq that I support is our soldiers. Once the troops leave Iraq, it is going to become another extremist country, which will be dominated by the influence of Iran.

Wow. You know that for a fact? Can I borrow your crystal ball? On second thought, never mind, I would rather not have one that see's only doom and gloom.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

While I won't go as far as being glad he lost (simply because of who won), he needs to stop b*tching.

Fair enough See edit.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by DjTj

Just a small point. We're not the only country sacrificing our troops to free the oppressed. Great Britain has contributed many of her troops, as have other members of the coalition.

This also isn't the first time in history a country has tried to free oppressed peoples with their armies. It was arguably a major component of our getting involved in WW2 ... I also seem to remember something called the Crusades that happenned a long time ago.

Yes there were 36 countries this time

and 30 countries last time with Kuwait.

What i meant was we normally handle 90% of the bulk. And I dont think the World Wars count much as they were World wars.. Everyone was going to get involved eventually as they didnt have much choice..

How many conflicts in the last 170 years were to free a country without making it part of themselves?

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

This whole thing about Saddam being a secularist is complete BS. His government was secular for practical, political reasons only. Saddam IS A MUSLIM.

I am also a Christian but I am not going to bomb abortion clinics any time soon.

He supported muslim causes when it suited him and what is worse had a history of using his religion to further gain power and influence. Saddam was not a moral secularist any more than he was a devout Muslim.

Sounds like my political science class in which one of the methods to get elected or get good PR with the people was to pander to the religious but not offend the secularist. Dang brings back memories of the Kerry/ Bush commericals ( im a good catholic, vote for him hes a good christian).

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Yes there were 36 countries this time

and 30 countries last time with Kuwait.

What i meant was we normally handle 90% of the bulk. And I dont think the World Wars count much as they were World wars.. Everyone was going to get involved eventually as they didnt have much choice..

How many conflicts in the last 170 years were to free a country without making it part of themselves?

Well, I think the world has been in a unique state of multiple democracies - something that never existed before the last 170 years. The idea of freedom being a great virtue was not a widely-held belief in the world until recently.

What's changed in the last 10 years is that we're the single dominant superpower. We'll understandably be handling the bulk of the responsibility. Although France did not agree with intervening in Iraq, I believe the people of France still believe strongly in the spread of freedom and democracy.

At the Second Conference on the Human Dimension of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe, representatives from the U.S., Canada, and many European nations adopted a document that read:

"They recognize that pluralistic democracy and the rule of law are essential for ensuring respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, the development of human contacts and the resolution of other issues of a related humanitarian character. They therefore welcome the commitment expressed by all participating States to the ideals of democracy and political pluralism as well as their common determination to build democratic societies based on free elections and the rule of law."

http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/hd/cope90e.htm

Democracy enlargement is a goal that much of the world shares. Other countries just lack the political will or the military might. Hopefully Iraq can set an example that other nations will follow.

[Akhhorus]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

This whole thing about Saddam being a secularist is complete BS. His government was secular for practical, political reasons only. Saddam IS A MUSLIM. He supported muslim causes when it suited him and what is worse had a history of using his religion to further gain power and influence. Saddam was not a moral secularist any more than he was a devout Muslim. He used whatever position suited him at the time. He portrayed himself as a modern day Saladin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin ) and often used religious (extremist muslim) propagana in his speeches.

Youre wrong: Saddam learned his politics in Nasserite Egypt: Nasser was an Arab Nationalist(Arafat was there too) who saw the "old philosphy" of Islam as what was holding back the Arab people. Saddam was only a muslim when it suited him. He had a copy of the Koran written in blood; Blood is the most unclean thing in Islam and a Koran written in blood is a deliberate outrage. Saddam also oppressed every sort of Muslim Cleric(unless they supported him completely) and was more than happy to attack his fellow muslims on two seperate occasions. Once, with the help of the US. He held up Saladin and Nebuchadnezzer, who lived in what is today Iraq: they are appeals to Iraqi nationalism(Saddam never mentioned that Saladin was a Kurd).

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by DjTj

Well, I think the world has been in a unique state of multiple democracies - something that never existed before the last 170 years. The idea of freedom being a great virtue was not a widely-held belief in the world until recently.

What's changed in the last 10 years is that we're the single dominant superpower. We'll understandably be handling the bulk of the responsibility. Although France did not agree with intervening in Iraq, I believe the people of France still believe strongly in the spread of freedom and democracy.

At the Second Conference on the Human Dimension of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe, representatives from the U.S., Canada, and many European nations adopted a document that read:

"They recognize that pluralistic democracy and the rule of law are essential for ensuring respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, the development of human contacts and the resolution of other issues of a related humanitarian character. They therefore welcome the commitment expressed by all participating States to the ideals of democracy and political pluralism as well as their common determination to build democratic societies based on free elections and the rule of law."

http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/hd/cope90e.htm

Democracy enlargement is a goal that much of the world shares. Other countries just lack the political will or the military might. Hopefully Iraq can set an example that other nations will follow.

not to sidetrack the thread: What makes you think France will ever do anything: Pointing to the Sudan and other issues???

I believe we can actually prove France helped in the genocide...

and still today do nothing to help. I hope the Tsunami relief in the Sudan helps to fix other issues also...

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Akhhorus

Youre wrong: Saddam learned his politics in Nasserite Egypt: Nasser was an Arab Nationalist(Arafat was there too) who saw the "old philosphy" of Islam as what was holding back the Arab people. Saddam was only a muslim when it suited him. He had a copy of the Koran written in blood; Blood is the most unclean thing in Islam and a Koran written in blood is a deliberate outrage. Saddam also oppressed every sort of Muslim Cleric(unless they supported him completely) and was more than happy to attack his fellow muslims on two seperate occasions. Once, with the help of the US. He held up Saladin and Nebuchadnezzer, who lived in what is today Iraq: they are appeals to Iraqi nationalism(Saddam never mentioned that Saladin was a Kurd).

So what part of this did you not understand?

Saddam was not a moral secularist any more than he was a devout Muslim. He used whatever position suited him at the time.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Thiebear

not to sidetrack the thread: What makes you think France will ever do anything: Pointing to the Sudan and other issues???

I believe we can actually prove France helped in the genocide...

and still today do nothing to help. I hope the Tsunami relief in the Sudan helps to fix other issues also...

I don't know that France will ever do anything, but there were French troops in Kosovo and Afghanistan. We know they were on the wrong side of Rwanda and Sudan. However, I don't believe that there's something fundamentally wrong with the French people that they are actually running around actively preventing the spread of freedom and democracy. The government at any given time may have its problems, but the ideals of the people are still not that far from our own.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

I am also a Christian but I am not going to bomb abortion clinics any time soon.

He supported muslim causes when it suited him and what is worse had a history of using his religion to further gain power and influence. Saddam was not a moral secularist any more than he was a devout Muslim.

Sounds like my political science class in which one of the methods to get elected or get good PR with the people was to pander to the religious but not offend the secularist. Dang brings back memories of the Kerry/ Bush commericals ( im a good catholic, vote for him hes a good christian).

Hey, I'm glad we agree. Now maybe you can explain how Saddam's so called secularism would prevent him from using muslim terrorists to strike out at his biggest enemy (us) especially if he thought he could do it with plausible deniability. Remember now, the bipartizan 9/11 commission concluded..

“Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.” (Pg 66)

One last thing. I'm not sure I understand the Christian, not bombing an abortion clinic reference. But let me say this:

It would be a mistake to assume Saddam operated under any moral code you or I would understand. Some people like Saddam are simply evil. I can't help but think of that actress who was killed over her purse saying "what are you going to do, shoot me?" Sadly, she got her answer.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Hey, I'm glad we agree. Now maybe you can explain how Saddam's so called secularism would prevent him from using muslim terrorists to strike out at his biggest enemy (us) .

Bin Laden the Koran thumper that he is and friend of Iran that he is is probably not going to anyone who believes outside his strict Ideology and especially to someone the hardline Iranians hate. Sadam allowed liquor stores and Music (gasp) I dont see how strict Ideological person like Laden would even want to compromise with Saddam. Heck Bin Laden hates the Saudi Royals and they are even more conservative than Saddam.

Granted its possible for them or anyone in the middle east for that fact to work with Bin Laden ( they all have the goal to see Isreal gone) but does that make it likely --no

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Bin Laden the Koran thumper that he is and friend of Iran that he is is probably not going to anyone who believes outside his strict Ideology and especially to someone the hardline Iranians hate. Sadam allowed liquor stores and Music (gasp) I dont see how strict Ideological person like Laden would even want to compromise with Saddam. Heck Bin Laden hates the Saudi Royals and they are even more conservative than Saddam.

Granted its possible for them or anyone in the middle east for that fact to work with Bin Laden ( they all have the goal to see Isreal gone) but does that make it likely --no

Bin Laden and Saddam didn't have to live together. They only had to agree that they both hated us and would cooperate to hurt us. Does that alone make it likely? No. But as I said before...

“With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.” (Pg 61 of the 9/11 report)

Note that the report does not say that Iraq did not respond, only that we do not know if they responded. It is also worth noting that the 9/11 commission concluded the Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq was established with al-Qaeda help. As we all know, actions speak louder than words.

The report continues: “In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75”

“Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.” (Pg 66)

Now I suppose we could assume that Saddam and bin Laden were discussing the upcoming soccer season but when a man like Saddam makes contact with an organization who's only export is terror and who's main target is the United States, I believe alarm bells should be ringing in the mind of any rational person.

[stevenaa]

ChopperDave,

Your ideas are noble but your rationale is flawed regarding "at what cost" Or is it that no loss is worth the cost in fighting for the freedom of a muslim country?

Do you not think this country had some idea of the tremendous loss of life we'd suffer when we shipped our men off to Europe to fight the very enemy that was hell bent on eradicating the Jewish race?

An enemy with the same goal has surfaced and your willing to stand by and watch in the name of sparing American soldiers lives? One difference now is that the Enemy has the stated goal of destroying us enroute to destroying all of Israel. Why is that do you suppose? We both know the answer. We are the only force on this planet that can doom their mission. We stand in their way. That is why they hate us.

1500 deaths is nothing when compared to the loss of life we've suffered in most all other wars in which we've engaged. This is a tremendously small price to pay for the freedom (of their chosing) of millions of fellow HUMANS. American or not, do they not have the same inalienable rights as do you and I?

Art is too kind in his call for a liberal's apology. I should think that a great outpouring of shame should be free flowing from anyone who cannot see and admit what an amazing day this is for the Iragi people. As well as for the continual hoping for doom and failure so they could prove their politics.

What do you people think is going through the minds of the populus in the regions other oppressed nations. I'd imagine that those that get a true picture of the outcome today will start asking "why can't we voter for our government" Of course they won't be saying it outloud!!

We choose Iraq over all the other countries listed in this thread because we had legal recourse to invade. (And Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding terrorist) My God, can you imagine the outcries from Liberals if we'd have tried to invade Iran, Syria or some other terrorist supporting nation. Never could have happened. Now these countries will know we are serious. They will not doubt our threats in the future. And you better believe the tyrants of these nations know full well that the very citizens they oppress would love to have the opportunity just experienced by the average Iraqi.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what type of government the people of Iraq decide upon. It is their choice, and if it falls on it's face then it will be THEIR failing, not ours. We have given them what they never could have given themselves in the face of the brutal totality of the Saddam regime. The chance to vote for their own freedom. It is in their hands now.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Chopper Dave

Stop there. Who are you to tell me what I need to grasp? What makes you such a high authority on the subject? We differ in opinion, and no matter what you think I need to grasp, I feel how I feel. Stop trying to impose your will upon others, because it strips you of all credibility.

It really offends me that you would even waste your time creating an entire thread, an "I told you so" of sorts, to get people to apologize because they don't agree with you.

Art, here's a newsflash from down here in reality:

You're a smart, eloquent guy. That doesn't mean you're right on matters of fact, and it doesn't mean that anyone agrees with you on matters of opinion. Stop acting as if that's the case.

You are wrong.. You were wrong.. and your going to be wrong again on Iraq.. its ok though.. thats why there is freedom of speech.. so people like us can take care of people like you.

Its what we do.